The Trump administration is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to revive President Donald Trump's executive order overhauling mail-in voting rules, arguing that a lower court blocked the policy before federal agencies had even decided how to carry it out.
In an emergency filing Monday, Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the high court that U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani acted too soon when she halted parts of the order last month. According to the administration, agencies including the U.S. Postal Service and the Department of Homeland Security are still determining how — or even whether — to implement Trump's directives.
"And the injunction is especially indefensible because the agencies are still deliberating over how (if at all) to implement the Order, yet the district court preemptively decided that whatever the agencies may choose to do will necessarily be unlawful," Sauer wrote.
The Justice Department says the timing matters because election officials will soon begin preparations for the 2026 midterm elections. If the injunction remains in place while the legal fight continues, the administration argues there may not be enough time to put any lawful changes into effect before voting begins.
"That problem is even more acute because any such decisions will need to be implemented well before November—indeed, as soon as early to mid-August—given the timing of state election procedures concerning voter-roll verification and absentee or mail-in voting," Sauer wrote.
Trump signed the executive order in March as part of a broader effort to reshape election administration and tighten rules surrounding voting by mail. The order directs the Department of Homeland Security to compile a list of verified U.S. citizens who are eligible to vote and instructs the U.S. Postal Service to develop stricter standards for states that conduct elections by mail.
The executive order followed Trump's repeated claims that widespread voter fraud has undermined U.S. elections. While election officials have uncovered isolated cases of fraud and instances of noncitizens appearing on voter rolls, investigations have found little evidence to support claims of fraud on the scale the president has alleged.
Talwani, an appointee of former President Barack Obama who serves on the federal bench in Boston, ruled last month that portions of the executive order likely violate the constitutional separation of powers by directing executive agencies to take actions not authorized by Congress.
The administration appealed that decision, but a three-judge panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined over the weekend to lift the injunction while the case proceeds.
The Supreme Court is now being asked to intervene before the lower courts finish reviewing the case. The emergency application is the Trump administration's 35th request for expedited relief from the high court, continuing a pattern of frequent emergency appeals as judges across the country weigh challenges to the president's executive actions.
Supporters of the administration argue the growing number of emergency applications reflects an increasing willingness by federal judges to block presidential policies before they take effect. Critics, meanwhile, contend the filings stem from executive actions they believe exceed the president's legal authority.
The request will initially go to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who handles emergency matters arising from the 1st Circuit. Although she could act on the application herself, requests from a presidential administration are typically referred to the full Supreme Court.
