More than 20 Democratic state attorneys general on Friday sued to block President Donald Trump’s executive order that directs federal agencies to limit who can be sent mail-in and absentee ballots, saying the measure illegally intrudes on state-run elections and would disenfranchise millions of eligible voters.
The lawsuit challenges an order Trump signed on Tuesday that instructs the U.S. Postal Service not to deliver vote-by-mail ballots to anyone who is not included on a new “predetermined” eligibility list. The order tasks the Department of Homeland Security with compiling that list from federal citizenship and naturalization records and defines eligibility simply as being at least 18 years old and a U.S. citizen. It also threatens states and localities that do not comply with potential federal funding losses and investigations.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, one of the plaintiffs, called the order an overreach. “Once again, President Trump is trying to rewrite the rules of our elections. But he lacks the authority to do so – full stop,” Bonta said in a statement accompanying the filing. The coalition argues the order is an unconstitutional interference with powers the Constitution vests in the states to set and run elections, and that Congress — not the White House — has the limited authority to alter certain federal election rules.
The attorneys general warned the order has already caused confusion and will “sow confusion and chaos” across state election systems, citing looming primaries and the 2026 midterm calendar. Their suit joins separate legal challenges brought this week by congressional Democratic leaders and civil rights groups, creating multiple court battles over what critics say is an effort to restrict access to absentee voting ahead of future elections.
The White House responded to the litigation through spokeswoman Abigail Jackson, who told the Guardian that “Only Democrat politicians and operatives would be upset about lawful efforts to secure American elections and ensure only eligible American citizens are casting ballots.” The Trump administration has repeatedly questioned the integrity of mail-in voting, despite lacking evidence of widespread fraud; Trump himself said in April 2020 that “Mail ballots are [a] very dangerous thing for this country” and has since continued to advocate for limits, writing in August 2025 that he wanted to eliminate mail-in voting to restore “honesty” in the 2026 midterms.
The lawsuit also points to practical implications: Trump has voted by mail in several Florida elections, including in a special election last month, even as roughly one-third of Americans cast ballots by mail during the 2024 presidential election, according to Census Bureau data. Plaintiffs say the executive order’s reliance on federal citizenship and naturalization records could miss eligible voters and create administrative burdens for states that have their own voter-registration processes and timelines.
Legal experts say the case will turn on whether the president can, by executive order, override or impose conditions on state-run voting procedures and on the scope of federal agencies’ authority to enforce such directives. With multiple suits now pending, the dispute appears likely to reach higher courts as states move to shield their election systems from what they describe as an unprecedented federal intervention.