Appeals Court in Boston Blocks Trump's Executive Order on Mail-In Voting in 23 States

Content of the Executive Order

The judge at the lower court added that the president lacks the authority for such directives. He may not intimidate local election officials with the threat of criminal prosecution. The US Department of Justice's prosecutorial argument that a lawsuit against the order was premature because the agencies had not yet finalized the measures was rejected by the appeals court.

Among other things, the executive order instructed the Department of Homeland Security to compile lists of eligible US citizens. In addition, the US Postal Service would be required to deliver mail-in ballots only to voters who were registered and appeared on approved state lists. Trump had signed the order in March.

Background: Trump's Allegations of Election Fraud

The background to the conflict is Trump's claim, repeated for years, that his defeat in the 2020 election was the result of massive voter fraud. These claims have been rejected by courts and election reviews. "Voter fraud? The evidence is missing," corresponding reporting summarizes.

Only a few days ago, Donald Trump cast doubt on the integrity of US elections once again in an address to the nation. He alleged, among other things, that China had tried over the years to prevent his election victories. China rejected Trump's accusations as invented and as malicious defamation. Trump reiterated his claim that fraud had occurred in the 2020 presidential election.

The US president announced he would release intelligence data on this and other "shocking vulnerabilities in our election infrastructure" that had previously been kept under wraps. The Department of Justice had warned beforehand that it might appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States in the event of a defeat.

Political Context: Midterms in November

The dispute takes on political significance primarily with an eye on the midterms. In November, the United States holds its midterm elections. In these so-called midterms, US voters elect, among others, the entire US House of Representatives as well as a portion of the Senate. If they lose their narrow majority in even one of the chambers to the Democrats, they will no longer be able to push through any major legislative initiatives.

The mail-in voting order therefore lands squarely in the middle of the election campaign. Under Trump's plan, the Department of Homeland Security and the US Postal Service were to take on new duties that would take effect immediately before the vote. The plaintiff states see this as an impermissible intrusion into their electoral sovereignty.

The appeals court emphasized that the case was not about a ruling on the merits, but merely about the question of whether the preliminary injunction remains in place. The Department of Justice had argued that a lawsuit against the order was premature because the agencies had not yet finalized the measures. The court did not follow this line.

The coming weeks are likely to show whether the US government will in fact take the path to the Supreme Court. Until then, implementation of the order in the 23 plaintiff states remains suspended, while the political debate over the integrity of US elections continues to intensify.