The Trump administration on Monday asked the US Supreme Court to lift judicial blocks that have prevented a March executive order from reshaping mail-in voting ahead of the 3 November midterm elections. Filed by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, the emergency application seeks to stay injunctions imposed by a federal district court in Massachusetts and upheld by the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which suspended key provisions of the order in 23 states and the District of Columbia. The administration contends that the lower courts’ intervention is premature and impedes the president’s ability to secure election integrity, and has asked the justices to act swiftly, arguing that any new policies must be in place by August to apply to the November vote.

The contested directive, signed by President Trump in March, instructs the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration to compile “state citizenship lists” of eligible voters and directs the US Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to those named on the lists. A coalition of almost two dozen states—most led by Democratic governors—sued immediately, asserting that the Constitution vests authority over election rules in the states and Congress, not the president. In filings, they argued the order would “sow confusion and threaten disenfranchisement of many eligible voters” and that federal agencies lack the capacity to produce accurate, comprehensive lists. The district court and a divided appellate panel agreed, with the First Circuit warning that the order represented “unprecedented levels of involvement by federal officials in how states administer elections.”

The administration maintains that the order is merely “general policy guidance” that directs subordinates to consider lawful action, and that the states’ challenge is to hypothetical future agency steps. Sauer wrote that the district court’s injunction “preemptively decided that whatever the agencies may choose to do will necessarily be unlawful,” causing irreparable harm by blocking the president’s efforts before agencies have finalised plans. The government has separately sought to obtain state voter rolls and has demanded that the Senate pass the SAVE America Act, which would require documentary proof of citizenship to register. The states, by contrast, warn of concrete injury: disruptions to election administration, compliance costs, and a credible threat of criminal prosecution for officials who distribute ballots to people not on the federal lists.

The legal fight plays out against a backdrop of Trump’s long-standing, unsubstantiated claims that mail-in voting is rife with fraud, despite analyses showing the practice is exceptionally rare. Critics note that restricting mail ballots could disproportionately affect Democratic turnout, given that party’s voters have historically used remote voting more. The Supreme Court has given the suing states until 3 August to respond. The bench now faces a decision that could create a patchwork of voting rules, as the current injunction applies only to the litigant states, leaving open the possibility that the administration could attempt to enforce the order elsewhere. The government’s emergency filing warns that “harms to voter integrity … cannot be undone” if the policy is not in effect for November.