Trump Mail-Ballot Order Remains Blocked After First Circuit Denies Stay

By the Real Ryan Nichols Editorial Team
Facts last checked: July 26, 2026, 6:30 a.m. Central

A federal appeals court has refused to let the Trump administration immediately enforce key parts of its new mail-ballot executive order in 23 states and the District of Columbia.

That is the verified result of a 20-page order entered July 25 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

It is also narrower than several possible headlines.

The court did not issue a final decision on the administration’s appeal. It did not strike down every part of President Donald Trump’s election order nationwide. It did not prohibit Congress from passing election legislation. And it did not establish a single mail-voting rule for all 50 states.

The immediate effect is this:

A June 25 injunction against Sections 2 and 3 of Executive Order 14399 remains in force for federal elections on or before November 3, 2026, in the plaintiff states and Washington, D.C., while the appeal continues.

The First Circuit denied two requests to pause that injunction—one from the federal defendants and another from 12 states, including Texas, that intervened in support of the executive order.

The decision was 2–1. Judges Gustavo Gelpí and Julie Rikelman formed the majority. Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod Dunlap agreed with part of the result but would have partially stayed the injunction as to portions of Section 2.

For voters, election officials and campaigns, the most important facts are the order’s limited geography, the approaching election deadlines and the unfinished status of the larger court fight.

What Executive Order 14399 directed

President Trump signed Executive Order 14399, “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections,” on March 31.

The White House said the order was intended to prevent ineligible voting, protect public confidence and add auditable controls to ballot mail. Federal law already prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections.

The challenged provisions went further than restating that prohibition.

Section 2: federal citizenship lists and enforcement priorities

Section 2(a) directed the Department of Homeland Security, working with the Social Security Administration and other federal sources, to compile a list for each state of people confirmed as U.S. citizens, age 18 or older by the election and residing in that state.

The order required those lists to be transmitted at least 60 days before a regularly scheduled federal election. For the November 3 midterms, the court identified September 4 as the deadline.

The order also required a correction process for individuals and a way for states to suggest changes. It expressly said being on the federal list would not itself mean that a person was properly registered to vote.

Section 2(b) directed the attorney general to prioritize investigation and, where appropriate, prosecution of election officials, vendors and others who issue, produce, ship or distribute federal ballots to people not eligible to vote.

Section 3: proposed Postal Service rules

Section 3 directed the U.S. Postal Service to propose new national standards for federal ballot mail.

The minimum provisions identified in the order included:

• official-election-mail markings;
• automation-compatible envelopes and unique Intelligent Mail barcodes;
• USPS design review for ballot envelopes;
• state notices concerning planned use of mail voting;
• state-furnished lists of voters expected to receive mailed ballots; and
• a proposed restriction against transmitting mail ballots for people not enrolled on the relevant participation list.

USPS published its proposed “Ballot Mail for Federal Elections” rule on June 2. The public-comment period closed July 2.

That proposal is not a final rule.

In a July 17 Federal Register notice, USPS said the rulemaking was subject to two injunctions and that it would not publish a final rule unless the government obtained relief from all relevant injunctions.

That matters. The executive order called for a final rule by July 29, but the Postal Service’s own notice says the litigation currently prevents publication.

Section 5: five-year retention language

Section 5 said states and localities “should” preserve most records showing voter participation for five years.

The district court did not treat that language as a binding five-year command. It concluded that Section 5 was merely advisory, or “precatory,” because Congress had already enacted a 22-month federal retention rule and the executive order used “should,” not mandatory language.

What the district court actually ordered

The lawsuit was brought by 23 states, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro in his official capacity.

On June 25, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani issued a 37-page memorandum and order.

For the November 3 election and earlier federal elections, the district court:

• granted summary judgment to the plaintiff states;
• declared Sections 2 and 3 legally void as beyond executive authority and contrary to separation of powers;
• treated Section 5 as nonbinding;
• enjoined federal agencies and officials—but not the president personally—from implementing Sections 2 and 3 against the plaintiff states; and
• allowed federal citizenship or eligibility assistance when a state requests it and the assistance operates within authority supplied by Congress.

The injunction covers Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania through its governor, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia.

The court dismissed the challenge concerning elections after November 3 without prejudice as premature. That means the June ruling was tied to the approaching 2026 elections, not a final answer for every future election.

Texas was not a plaintiff. Texas joined Alabama, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina and South Dakota as intervenor states supporting the order.

What the First Circuit decided on July 25

The federal defendants and the intervenor states asked the First Circuit to stay—temporarily suspend—the district court injunction while their appeals proceed.

Their stay motions focused on whether the plaintiff states had standing to sue and whether their claims were ripe for court review. According to the First Circuit, the movants did not use the stay request to defend the executive order’s legality on the underlying constitutional merits.

The majority concluded that the government and intervenor states had not made the strong showing required for emergency relief.

The record showed that federal agencies were already building the infrastructure for citizenship lists and a USPS portal. The government also acknowledged that it intended to enforce the order for the 2026 election if the injunction were removed.

The majority found that election deadlines made the dispute concrete rather than hypothetical. States were already preparing ballots, mail procedures, staff guidance and public instructions for September primaries and the November general election.

The court also relied on several kinds of alleged state injury:

• staff time and operational costs;
• replacement or redesign of ballot envelopes;
• possible funding consequences;
• possible investigation or prosecution of election officials; and
• interference with state authority over election administration.

The majority rejected the argument that these states should wait until every agency detail was final. Its practical point was that waiting could force major election changes too close to voting.

On the remaining stay factors, the majority found the government’s claims of irreparable harm insufficient. It noted that the district injunction applies only to the plaintiff jurisdictions and elections through November 3.

The court also found that the record reflected a threat of confusion and eligible-voter disenfranchisement if the new procedures took effect on the current timetable.

The result was a complete denial of both stay motions.

What the dissent said

Judge Dunlap agreed that the government had not justified a stay of the Postal Service portions in Section 3.

She disagreed with the majority’s all-or-nothing result for parts of Section 2.

Her opinion said the federal citizenship-list provision directs DHS to give information to states but does not expressly order states to change their voter rolls or take another action. On that basis, she viewed an injury from Section 2(a) as too speculative to give the plaintiff states standing.

She also distinguished between possible federal enforcement against officials who permit voting by certain 17-year-olds in primaries—a conflict that could support standing in some states—and ordinary enforcement of the existing ban on noncitizen voting.

Judge Dunlap would have stayed the injunction as to Section 2(a) and part of Section 2(b), while leaving the Postal Service restrictions blocked.

That dissent is important because it identifies a narrower path the administration may pursue later in the appeal or in an emergency application to the Supreme Court.

What remains blocked—and what does not

Here is the current legal picture as of early July 26:

Question	Verified answer
Can the administration enforce Sections 2 and 3 against the plaintiff states for elections through November 3?	No. The injunction remains in place.
Did the First Circuit finally decide the full appeal?	No. It denied emergency stay motions.
Is Section 5 a binding five-year command?	The district court said no; it treated the language as advisory.
Did the ruling create one nationwide standard?	No. The injunction is geographically limited.
Is the USPS proposal already a final rule?	No. USPS said it would not publish a final rule without relief from the relevant injunctions.
Can federal agencies help a state verify eligibility when the state requests lawful assistance?	Yes. The district injunction expressly preserves that possibility.
Can Congress legislate national rules for federal elections?	This ruling does not prevent Congress from exercising authority the Constitution gives Congress.

The administration may continue the ordinary appeal. It may also seek emergency relief from the U.S. Supreme Court; the Justice Department previously identified that as a possibility. No Supreme Court filing or order should be assumed until it appears on the official docket.

The White House has maintained that the executive order lawfully protects elections and that the administration expects to prevail. The plaintiff states argue that it unlawfully displaces state election authority and would risk confusion and eligible-voter disenfranchisement.

Those are opposing legal positions. The operative court orders—not either side’s press statement—control the current result.

What this means for Texas

Texas readers should not mistake the First Circuit order for a Texas-wide ban on every part of Executive Order 14399.

Texas is an intervenor supporting the order, not one of the jurisdictions protected by the Massachusetts injunction.

At the same time, Texans should not assume that new USPS ballot-mail restrictions are already final or in force. USPS has publicly stated that it will not publish the proposed final rule unless the government obtains relief from all relevant injunctions.

That leaves three practical points:

1. Existing Texas election law and currently effective federal law remain the starting point.
2. A proposed federal rule is not the same thing as an effective final rule.
3. Voters should use official instructions from the Texas Secretary of State and their county election office rather than a campaign post, viral graphic or generalized national headline.

The November election is close enough that any Supreme Court filing, final agency action or new injunction could matter quickly. The date and exact reach of the next order will matter as much as which side wins it.

Verified, disputed and still unknown

Verified

• Executive Order 14399 was signed March 31.
• USPS published a proposed ballot-mail rule June 2.
• The district court granted the plaintiff states summary judgment concerning the 2026 elections and enjoined Sections 2 and 3 in those jurisdictions.
• The First Circuit denied the stay motions 2–1 on July 25.
• The underlying appeal is not finished.
• The injunction is not nationwide.

Disputed legal questions

• Whether the president had constitutional or statutory authority for Sections 2 and 3.
• Whether every plaintiff state has standing to challenge every part of Section 2.
• Whether the injunction is properly tailored.
• Whether the administration can obtain relief on appeal or at the Supreme Court.

Still unknown

• Whether and when the administration will ask the Supreme Court for emergency relief.
• How quickly the First Circuit will decide the full appeal.
• Whether the government will narrow, revise or defend every challenged provision.
• Whether USPS will ever publish a final version of its proposed rule.
• What requirements, if any, would survive in a final rule after litigation.

Ryan’s Take

Editorial analysis prepared by the Real Ryan Nichols Editorial Team; this is not presented as a firsthand quotation from Ryan.

Election integrity and lawful limits on executive power do not have to be enemies.

Noncitizens cannot lawfully vote in federal elections. Eligible citizens also cannot be treated as acceptable collateral damage in a rushed system built from incomplete data. Both statements can be true at the same time.

The useful question is not whether someone trusts Trump, distrusts Trump, trusts a Democratic attorney general or distrusts a federal judge.

The useful questions are:

• Who has the legal authority?
• What does the actual text require?
• Is the data complete enough for the job?
• What happens when the data is wrong?
• How much notice do states, local officials and voters receive?
• Is there a clear correction process before a lawful ballot is disrupted?

If the administration believes these controls are necessary, it should be able to identify the congressional authority, show how an eligible voter avoids being wrongly excluded and defend the exact rule in court.

If opponents believe the controls are dangerous, they should address the real proposal and real record rather than implying that every election-security measure is illegitimate.

The First Circuit did not settle that entire argument. It kept the current injunction in place because the election calendar is moving faster than the appeal.

That distinction is not a technicality. It is the fact.

Facts first means reading the order before choosing the outrage.

For another example of separating an executive directive from what it legally changes, read what Trump’s Smithsonian warning-sign order actually does. For the difference between a congressional blueprint and enacted law, see what the House’s $95 billion reconciliation resolution actually did.

Primary and authoritative sources

• First Circuit July 25 order denying the stay motions
• Executive Order 14399 from the White House
• District of Massachusetts June 25 memorandum and order
• USPS proposed ballot-mail rule in the Federal Register
• USPS July 17 notice addressing the injunctions and final-rule status
• Justice Department emergency stay motion
• Reuters report on the July 25 appellate order

Want future Politics Facts First updates? You may choose to join the RealRyanNichols.com email or text list. Signup is optional, consent is never assumed, and every message includes an unsubscribe or STOP option.

OG artwork disclosure: The social image is an original symbolic editorial illustration. It does not depict a specific courthouse, an official court seal, an actual ballot or a government-issued legal document.