A United States federal appeals court has denied the Trump administration’s request to enforce key parts of an executive order that would have imposed new restrictions on mail-in voting in 23 states and the District of Columbia. In a 2-1 decision issued on Saturday, the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston left in place a lower court’s June ruling that declared central provisions of the order unconstitutional, effectively blocking the measures for the upcoming November midterm elections.

The Department of Justice had argued that the legal challenge was premature because federal agencies had not yet finalised the policies required to implement the order. The appeals court rejected that reasoning, finding that the plaintiff states were already facing “rapidly approaching deadlines” and had no practical choice but to respond now. The majority opinion, written by two judges appointed by former president Joe Biden, noted that the executive order had already placed “incredible strain” on state election officials.

The contested order, signed by President Donald Trump in March 2026, directed the Department of Homeland Security to compile lists of confirmed US citizens eligible to vote and provide them to states, instructed the US Postal Service to establish new standards for mail-in ballots, and ordered the Justice Department to prioritise investigations into officials who issue ballots to people deemed ineligible. The states, led by California, Massachusetts, Nevada and Washington, argued that the Constitution assigns primary responsibility for administering federal elections to the states and that the president had exceeded his authority by directing federal agencies to impose new voting requirements.

Trump has for years claimed, without presenting evidence, that mail-in voting is vulnerable to widespread fraud. The executive order was his second attempt to restrict the practice by decree; a similar effort in 2025 was also blocked by the courts. The administration indicated in earlier court filings that it might seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court if it did not prevail at the appellate level. For now, the injunction remains in place, and the underlying legal challenge will continue to be heard while the November elections proceed under existing state rules.