Appeals court rejects Trump bid to have Postal Service screen mail-in ballots

Don’t miss the full story from our staff writers, whose reportage is the basis of this article.

A federal appeals court has rejected President Trump’s attempt to revive an executive order that sought to have the U.S. Postal Service play a gatekeeping role in this year’s elections by refusing to deliver mail-in ballots unless states first verified voter eligibility.

The First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to overturn a lower court ruling that had blocked the plan, which Mr. Trump outlined in a March executive order. The Justice Department had argued that the Democrat-led states challenging the order lacked standing to sue and that the case wasn’t ripe because the administration hadn’t yet finalized its implementation. The appeals court disagreed, finding that states were already being forced to respond to the directive — noting that nearly half the states had already obtained ballot envelopes that wouldn’t have met the standards required under the order. “The plaintiff states have no practical choice but to respond to the EO now,” the three-judge panel wrote.

The blocked order had directed the Department of Homeland Security to produce citizenship lists for states to cross-reference against their voter rolls, and ordered the Postal Service to develop standardized envelopes for election mail, refusing delivery of any that didn’t comply. Ballots addressed to voters not appearing on state-approved eligibility lists also would have been rejected. The order further directed federal agencies to withhold funding from noncompliant states and localities, and directed the Justice Department to pursue investigations against violators. A district judge had already blocked the entire order before this appeal.

The three-judge panel included two appointees of former President Biden and one Trump appointee, Judge Joshua Dunlap, who largely agreed with his colleagues but dissented on the DHS provision. He argued that states face no current obligation tied to the citizenship lists, calling any injury “speculative and hypothetical” and concluding the states lacked standing on that specific piece.

Elections in the U.S. are administered by the states, though Congress holds authority to set rules for federal elections. State officials said they feared criminal exposure under Mr. Trump’s Justice Department if the order took effect as written — pointing to a provision directing prosecution of officials who allow votes from anyone not turning 18 by Election Day, a standard that conflicts with several states’ rules allowing 17-year-olds to vote in primaries if they’ll turn 18 by the general election.

Read more: Court upholds block on Trump plans to use post office to police election