The Trump administration on Monday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to halt a district court ruling that blocked President Donald Trump’s broad March 31 executive order restricting vote-by-mail.

The move came just two days after a federal appeals court denied the administration’s request to resume the controversial plan, which would force significant limits and voter information collection requirements on states in regard to vote-by-mail. 

It also sets up a high-stakes confrontation at the high court between the administration and the 23 states that sued over the Trump order, a little more than three months before the midterm elections that will determine control of Congress.

“The district court has issued an extraordinary injunction barring federal agencies from implementing an Executive Order promoting election integrity in the upcoming federal elections in November,” wrote Solicitor General D. John Sauer in his petition to the high court.

Sauer argued the executive order should not be blocked because, among other things, the U.S. Postal Service has not yet come up with a final rule on how it would be implemented.

Appeals court ruling

A three-judge panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a lower court ruling last month that blocked the order because the U.S. Constitution grants states — not the president — authority to administer elections.

The executive order “directs unprecedented levels of involvement by federal officials in how states administer elections,” two appeals judges, Gustavo A. Gelpí and Julie Rikelman, wrote in a Saturday order. Both were appointed by President Joe Biden.

Gelpí and Rikelman considered and rejected the administration’s argument that states could not challenge the order because the Postal Service rule was not finalized. 

The order directed the agency’s final rule to contain a requirement that states start submitting citizenship rosters 60 days from the general election, which is Sept. 4 this year. Allowing the order to go into effect would force states, which have been preparing for the election for months, to use considerable time and funding to create a new election system in mere weeks.

“The Government has failed to convince us that the impact of the (executive order) on the Plaintiff States is ‘hypothetical,’” Gelpí and Rikelman wrote.

The panel’s third judge, Joshua D. Dunlap, concurred in part and dissented in part, noting that the Postal Service rule mandated by the executive order had not been finalized. The timeline suggested by the order, though, would have required states to take immediate action related to mail ballots, he added.

Consequences for states

Time is running out for Trump’s administration to successfully place the restrictions on vote-by-mail before November’s midterm elections 99 days from Monday.

The 1st Circuit panel pointed to the approaching midterms as a reason to block the order for now. A full analysis of the executive order could be considered on a longer timeline, but state election officials faced imminent consequences if they did not begin preparing for the order’s requirements in time for the November general election and September primaries, the judges found.

The order directed the U.S. Postal Service to require states to notify the agency 90 days before an election if they plan to use mail-in ballots and, if so, to send the federal government a list of eligible voters at least two months before the election and before sending ballots to those voters.

Democratic officials in 23 states — California, Massachusetts, Nevada, Washington, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania — and the District of Columbia brought the suit challenging the executive order. 

Twelve states with Republican attorneys general — Alabama, Missouri, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and Texas — joined the appeal on the federal government’s side.

Citizenship lists

The executive order also required the Department of Homeland Security, with help from the Social Security Administration, to compile lists of voting-age citizens living in each state, and then provide that information to state officials at least 60 days before each federal election. 

The list of citizens would be drawn from naturalization and Social Security records, according to the order. It would also include data from SAVE, a powerful computer program maintained by Homeland Security that verifies citizenship by checking names against information in federal databases. 

The district court judge, Indira Talwani, said the executive order did not cite relevant constitutional or legal authority to support the creation of the lists.

Trump erodes faith in mail ballots

Trump has consistently raised unfounded concerns about mail-in voting, which nearly every state allows and some use exclusively. 

The practice, especially common in Western states, enjoyed strong bipartisan support until Trump sought to undermine its credibility during the 2020 election cycle.

In 2018, the Pew Research Center found 71% of voters, including 57% of Republicans, supported vote-by-mail. 

By the time of an April 2026 poll, Democrats’ favorable opinion of vote-by-mail remained high, but Republican support cratered to 34%.

In the executive order, Trump said restricting mail-in voting would limit voting by noncitizens, another voting issue Trump has often raised without offering evidence it has created a significant integrity problem in any election.

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Republicans passed a measure to curb stock trading by members of Congress that was packaged with an unrelated voter ID bill, part of President Donald Trump’s push for major federal involvement in elections.

The legislation passed by a vote of 232-198. All Republicans and 13 Democrats voted in favor.

The bill faces possible headwinds in the narrowly split Senate where 60 votes are required for passage. Republicans control the upper chamber with 53 members, to Democrats’ 47 members. 

The House-passed bill, sponsored by Rep. Bryan Steil, R-Wis., would require voters to present a current state-issued driver’s license or identification card, passport, valid military or veteran ID, or tribal government-issued ID card to be able to vote. 

The base bill, the Stop Insider Trading Act, would prohibit members of Congress and their spouses and close family members from purchasing certain stocks, and require a public notice and waiting period prior to selling stocks.

Violators could face a penalty of $2,000 or 10% of the transaction value, whichever is greater, plus any net gain realized from the transaction over a specified time period. 

The bill would govern investments issued by a publicly traded company. Some investments would be exempt, including widely held investment funds and investments held in a trust. Also, a spouse’s or dependent’s transactions made on behalf of another person, or held as part of a job benefits package would also be exempt.

Voter ID

But it was the voter ID bill that attracted most attention as lawmakers debated the measure this week.

Under the bill, if a voter doesn’t have one of the listed physical forms of identification, state election officials can issue a provisional ballot. The voter would then have three days to provide the accepted ID or an affidavit that the voter doesn’t have one because of religious objections to being photographed.

Additionally, state officials would be prohibited from accepting absentee ballots unless the voter attaches a copy of a valid ID, the last four digits of their Social Security number with an affidavit that they cannot obtain a photo ID, or a notarized statement that the voter personally completed their ballot.

During Monday’s House Rules Committee debate of the bill, Democrats criticized Republicans for removing a state grant provision from the voter ID section of the bill that would have covered voters’ individual costs of acquiring IDs. 

Democrats also panned the bill for going further than state laws in Florida and Wisconsin that are considered among the nation’s strictest. 

As of April 2025, 36 states had some form of voter ID law on the books, though they vary in restrictions, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Rep. Joe Neguse, D-Colo., asked Steil why Wisconsin state law allows some university IDs at the voting polls, while his federal bill does not.

“Plenty of constituents of yours at a variety of different colleges and universities that you represent … right now comply with what has been described by others as the most strict voter ID law in the country by using their college ID. But their congressman is championing a bill that would tell them that they can no longer do that,” Neguse said.

“Great question,” Steil replied. “Universities across the country, including in my home state, issue IDs to noncitizens, issue IDs to illegal immigrants.”

Not as restrictive as SAVE America Act

Attaching the voter ID legislation to a bill curbing lawmakers’ stock trading appears to be Republicans’ compromise with the president’s eagerness for a more restrictive bill that faces a slim to nothing chance of clearing Congress.

Trump is pushing Republicans to pass an even broader federal election regulations bill dubbed the SAVE America Act. That bill would require additional documents, such as passports and birth certificates, to register to vote. Critics say it would upend state management of elections.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., has warned there are not enough votes in the Senate to pass Trump’s preferred bill.

The president promoted the legislation in a primetime address July 16 when he declassified evidence that he said showed attempted election interference by China in 2020.

Experts say the documents released did not prove Trump’s claims, and critics panned the speech as the president’s attempt to undermine trust in the upcoming November midterm elections that will decide control of Congress.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., praised the joint stock trading and voter ID bill Tuesday, saying “probably in excess of 9 out of 10 Americans support both measures.” Johnson also said House Republicans “will continue to hammer” Trump’s messaging about elections.

Dems object

House Democratic leadership urged members to vote “no” on the bill because it would allow lawmakers and close family members to continue buying and selling stocks. 

Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon, D-Pa., said Americans “have had it” with stock trading by federal lawmakers.

“They are fed up with it. Congress needs to enact a comprehensive ban on members of Congress as well as the president, the vice president and members of their families from owning or trading individual stocks or having other financial dealings,” Scanlon said Monday.

Scanlon’s amendment to replace the GOP-sponsored stock trading bill with the text of Rhode Island Democrat Seth Magaziner’s more restrictive bill, dubbed the Restore Trust in Government Act, failed. Magaziner’s bill also includes restrictions on the president, vice president and their families.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., characterized the bill on the House floor Tuesday as a “fake stock trading ban.” 

“I want to be very clear: their bill does not block insider trading, no matter what it’s called,” Jayapal said.

They also objected to the voter ID portion.

The measure “would functionally eviscerate mail voting by forcing Americans to include photocopies of their IDs alongside their mailed ballots,” according to House Minority Whip Katherine Clark’s email to members ahead of the vote Wednesday.

Additionally, Clark, a Massachusetts Democrat, castigated the bill’s “narrow set of acceptable photo identification in order to cast a ballot in a federal election.”

The Congressional Black Caucus issued a statement Tuesday slamming the bill.

“House Republicans are not serious about enacting a meaningful congressional stock trading ban,” the Democrat-aligned group said. “The combined Stop Insider Trading Act and Voter ID Act — which incorporates provisions from the voter-suppressive, so-called SAVE America Act — would allow Members of Congress to continue owning, selling, and, in some cases, purchasing individual stocks while simultaneously imposing stricter voter ID requirements that would make it harder for millions of eligible Americans to vote, including by mail.”