A federal appeals court on Saturday declined to let President Donald Trump’s administration put into effect a March executive order that would have tightened mail-in voting rules in 23 states before November’s elections, keeping in place a lower court injunction that blocked the policy.

The Boston-based 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Justice Department’s bid to lift the order while the case is appealed, preserving a ruling that said key parts of the president’s directive were unconstitutional.

Also Read | Iran blames Ukraine for Caspian Sea vessel strike, says ‘cannot go unanswered’

A tidy scheme meets untidy questions

The executive order was designed to reshape how mail ballots are handled. It directed federal officials to create a list of eligible voters, with the Department of Homeland Security or US Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Social Security Administration tasked with building a “state citizenship list” from federal records.

It also sought to require the US Postal Service to deliver ballots only to voters on approved state lists and told the Justice Department to prioritize investigations and prosecutions of election officials who issued ballots to people deemed not eligible.

Trump has framed such measures as safeguards against non-citizen voting, while state officials argued the plan would create confusion and exceed presidential authority.

The judges draw a rather firm line

In its 2-1 ruling, the appeals court sided with a coalition of 23 states and the District of Columbia led by California, Massachusetts, Nevada, and Washington State.

The judges rejected the Justice Department’s claim that the lawsuit was premature because agencies had not yet finalized implementation steps.

“The Plaintiff States have no practical choice but to respond now,” the court wrote, pointing to the rapidly approaching deadlines in the order and the need for states to prepare for the September and November elections.

The panel agreed with US District Judge Indira Talwani’s earlier conclusion that the federal government lacked authority to direct the states in this way.

The final word remains delightfully elusive

The case is the latest in a broader legal fight over Trump’s push to tighten election rules, especially mail voting.

Trump signed the order in March after years of calling for stricter limits on voting by mail and repeating false claims about his 2020 election loss.

The appeals court said states, not the president, are assigned the role of administering federal elections under the Constitution. A related attempt to block the order had already been rejected by a federal judge in Washington, DC.

The Justice Department warned it may ask the US Supreme Court to step in if the 1st Circuit does not rule in its favor.

Also Read | Trump pauses Iran strikes to give talks ‘a little bit of room’

FAQs

Q1: Why did the appeals court block Trump’s mail voting order?

The appeals court said the states were likely to succeed in arguing that the president lacked the authority to impose the election-related changes outlined in the executive order.

Q2: What would Trump’s executive order have changed?

The order sought to tighten mail-in voting rules by directing federal agencies to help create voter eligibility lists and altering how mail ballots would be handled.