The Democratic Party is appealing a federal judge’s decision not to immediately block President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at tightening rules surrounding mail-in voting.
The appeal comes after U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols ruled on May 28 that Democrats’ request for a preliminary injunction was premature because federal agencies had not yet taken concrete steps to implement the order.
Trump’s March 31 executive order directs federal agencies to take several actions related to mail-in voting.
Among them, the administration would compile a list of confirmed U.S. citizens and require the U.S. Postal Service to deliver ballots only to voters appearing on approved state mail-in voting lists.
Democrats challenged the order in court, arguing that it exceeds presidential authority and could potentially impact voting access for millions of Americans.
However, Nichols did not rule on the legality of the executive order itself.
Instead, the judge concluded that the plaintiffs had not yet demonstrated immediate harm because implementation had not begun.
His decision left existing voting procedures unchanged and did not alter how Americans currently cast ballots.
The Democratic Party formally signaled its appeal Monday.
Meanwhile, legal challenges to the executive order continue on multiple fronts.
A separate lawsuit filed in Massachusetts by voting rights organizations is also seeking to block portions of the order.
A federal judge in Boston is expected to hear arguments in that case.
On May 29, the U.S. Postal Service proposed a rule requiring states to provide lists of voters who receive mail-in ballots.
The proposal is now undergoing a 30-day public comment period before any final action can be taken.
The Massachusetts lawsuit was filed by several organizations, including the League of Women Voters, the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, the Association of Americans Resident Overseas, the U.S. Vote Foundation, OCA–Asian Pacific American Advocates, and Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc.
The groups are represented by a coalition of legal organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Brennan Center for Justice, the Legal Defense Fund, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, and LatinoJustice PRLDEF.
In a statement, the ACLU argued that the executive order violates both federal law and the Constitution.
“The Constitution makes clear that only the states and Congress can set the rules for elections,” the organization said.
Attorneys representing the plaintiffs argued that the administration is attempting to take powers reserved for states and Congress.
“The Constitution is clear: the states and Congress — not the president — set the rules for our elections,” the attorneys said. “The Trump administration is attempting to seize that power for itself with an unlawful and dangerous executive order.”
The legal teams also argued that the order could affect organizations that assist voters, particularly those who rely heavily on mail-in ballots.
Several groups highlighted concerns about overseas voters, military families, seniors, voters with disabilities, students, and rural residents who often depend on absentee voting.
“Mail voting helps millions of Americans participate in our democracy,” said Marcia Johnson of the League of Women Voters.
The Association of Americans Resident Overseas said that many Americans living abroad rely on mail voting as their only practical option for participating in elections.
The administration has defended the executive order as an effort to strengthen election security and improve verification processes.
The Justice Department did not immediately comment on the Democrats’ appeal.
The legal battle now appears headed toward a prolonged court fight as judges weigh whether the executive branch has authority to implement the changes outlined in Trump’s order, Reuters reported.
For now, however, the ruling means the executive order remains in place while litigation continues, though no immediate changes to voting procedures have taken effect.
With multiple lawsuits advancing simultaneously, federal courts will likely play a major role in determining whether Trump’s election-related directives survive legal scrutiny ahead of future federal elections.
