Brown Jackson Declines Trump Admin Request Over Mail-In Ballot Order

The states argued that the order conflicts with constitutional provisions granting states the authority to determine voter eligibility and regulate the “Times, Places, and Manner” of conducting congressional elections.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, an Obama appointee, agreed with those arguments and, on June 25, issued an order barring the federal government from enforcing the executive order’s mail-in ballot and state citizenship list provisions for the Nov. 3, 2026, elections in the states participating in the lawsuit.

On Saturday, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit turned down the government’s request to intervene.

If the order were “to take effect for the elections taking place” in the fall, the majority wrote, “it would sow confusion and threaten disenfranchisement of many eligible voters.”

The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Monday to intervene, arguing that the lawsuit is premature because the federal agencies responsible for carrying out the executive order have not yet determined how its provisions will be implemented.

In the filing, Solicitor General D. John Sauer contended that the courts should not consider the states’ challenge until the agencies have finalized their implementation plans.

Sauer argued that even if the courts ultimately determine the states’ lawsuit is properly before them, Talwani’s order should be stayed because allowing it to remain in effect would cause what he described as “serious irreparable harm.”