By Lina Irawan 
The decision, issued on a Saturday by a panel of judges from the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, effectively rejected the Trump administration’s attempt to overturn a lower court injunction. This injunction had prevented the implementation of sweeping mail-in voting restrictions in 23 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, all of whom had jointly sued to challenge the executive order’s constitutionality. The appeals court’s affirmation underscored the prevailing legal consensus that the power to regulate federal elections primarily resides with the states and Congress, not the Executive Branch.
At the heart of the controversy was an executive order signed by then-President Donald Trump in March 2020. Amidst the burgeoning COVID-19 pandemic, which was rapidly shifting the landscape of American elections towards expanded mail-in voting, Trump directed the director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the commissioner of the Social Security Administration (SSA) to collaborate on the creation of a "state citizenship list" of eligible voters. Furthermore, the order controversially mandated that the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) deliver mail ballots exclusively to individuals appearing on this newly conceived federal roster.
President Trump had consistently framed these proposed changes as essential safeguards against voter fraud, particularly focusing on preventing non-U.S. citizens from casting ballots. His administration argued that such a federal list would enhance election integrity and secure the franchise. However, this rationale was met with widespread skepticism and alarm from state election officials, Democratic leaders, and a broad coalition of voting rights advocates. Critics argued vociferously that the executive order was not only a clear overreach of presidential authority but also fraught with practical difficulties and ripe for abuse, potentially leading to voter suppression and widespread chaos just months before the high-stakes November 2020 presidential election.
The legal challenge originated from a formidable coalition of 23 states and the District of Columbia, led by Democratic attorneys general. Their lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Boston, contended that Trump’s executive order was fundamentally unconstitutional. They argued that the U.S. Constitution explicitly vests the authority to establish and regulate election rules with the states and Congress, not the President. This assertion draws directly from Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution, which grants state legislatures the power to prescribe the "Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives," and to Congress the power to "make or alter such Regulations." Furthermore, Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 outlines the process for appointing presidential electors, also largely a state prerogative. The plaintiffs maintained that the executive order represented an unprecedented federal intrusion into a domain traditionally reserved for state sovereignty, threatening to disrupt established election processes and disenfranchise legitimate voters.
U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, presided over the initial case. Judge Talwani sided with the states, agreeing that the executive order likely exceeded the President’s constitutional authority. In her initial ruling, she issued a preliminary injunction that halted the implementation of Trump’s order for the Nov. 3, 2020 elections, but critically, this injunction applied only to the states that had joined the lawsuit. This limited scope meant that theoretically, the order could still have been pursued in non-suing states, though the practical challenges of a patchwork implementation would have been immense. The judge’s decision highlighted concerns about irreparable harm to the states’ ability to conduct fair and orderly elections and the potential disenfranchisement of eligible voters if the federal directive were to proceed.
The Justice Department, representing the Trump administration, swiftly indicated its intent to appeal Judge Talwani’s ruling. Following the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ confirmation of the injunction, the Justice Department released a statement affirming its commitment to "reviewing all options" regarding its next legal steps and expressing confidence that Trump’s executive order would ultimately be upheld. This suggested a potential further appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, though the rapidly approaching election date made the prospect of a definitive ruling before November increasingly unlikely.
The executive order and subsequent legal battles unfolded against a backdrop of unprecedented challenges to the U.S. election system. The COVID-19 pandemic compelled many states to rapidly expand mail-in voting options to ensure voter safety, leading to a dramatic increase in ballots cast by mail in 2020. While states like Oregon, Washington, and Colorado have successfully conducted elections entirely by mail for years, President Trump consistently and vociferously attacked mail-in voting throughout 2020, frequently alleging it was rife with fraud without providing substantive evidence. His rhetoric often conflated universal mail-in voting (where ballots are sent to all registered voters) with absentee voting (where voters request a ballot), and overlooked the robust security measures already in place in most states for mail ballots, such as signature verification, ballot tracking, and clear chain-of-custody protocols.
Election law experts and constitutional scholars largely viewed Trump’s executive order as an extraordinary attempt to circumvent established electoral processes. Rick Hasen, a prominent election law professor at the University of California, Irvine, described the order as a "shocking proposal" that was "dead on arrival constitutionally." He, like many others, emphasized that the creation of a federal voter list and the dictate to the USPS represented a fundamental challenge to the principle of federalism, which dictates a division of power between the federal government and state governments. The notion of a "state citizenship list" was particularly problematic, raising questions about how such a list would be compiled, cross-referenced, and maintained without infringing on state voter registration databases, which are often complex and tailored to individual state laws. Furthermore, the idea of the USPS, an independent agency, being compelled to verify voter eligibility before delivering mail, was deemed a massive logistical and legal overreach, potentially violating existing federal laws governing postal operations and voter privacy.
The 1st Circuit’s decision, therefore, served as a powerful affirmation of the decentralized nature of American elections. The U.S. electoral system is not a single federal system but rather a collection of 50 state systems, each with its own laws, procedures, and officials. This structure, while sometimes leading to variations in voter access and experience, is a core tenet of American federalism and has historically been protected by the courts. The appeals court’s upholding of the injunction reinforced the idea that presidential executive orders, while powerful tools for managing the Executive Branch, have significant limitations when they attempt to dictate policy in areas explicitly delegated to other branches of government or to the states.
For the 23 states and the District of Columbia involved in the lawsuit, the ruling provided crucial clarity and stability as they prepared for the general election. It allowed them to proceed with their existing, state-approved mail-in voting plans without the specter of a last-minute, federally mandated overhaul. This was particularly vital during a pandemic when election administrators were already grappling with unprecedented challenges, from recruiting poll workers to ensuring safe in-person voting options.
Looking ahead, while the Justice Department’s statement indicated a possible further appeal, the legal landscape for overturning the injunction appeared challenging. The constitutional arguments underpinning the states’ case were robust, relying on long-standing interpretations of federal election law and the separation of powers. Any attempt to persuade the Supreme Court would have required demonstrating that the lower courts erred significantly in their constitutional interpretation or that the executive order was a necessary and lawful exercise of presidential power, a claim that had already been largely discredited by multiple legal analyses. The practical window for a Supreme Court decision before the November 2020 election was also rapidly closing, suggesting that the appeals court’s ruling would effectively stand as the final word on this particular executive order for that election cycle.
In conclusion, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision was more than just a procedural legal victory; it was a significant affirmation of states’ rights in election administration and a powerful check on executive overreach. It underscored the constitutional framework that reserves primary authority over elections to the states and Congress, safeguarding the decentralized nature of American democracy against attempts to centralize control. This ruling helped preserve the integrity and functionality of the 2020 election processes in nearly half the nation, ensuring that states could manage their elections according to their own laws and established procedures, free from last-minute federal directives that many feared would sow confusion and undermine voter participation.
