A federal judge on Thursday dealt another blow to President Donald Trump’s effort to reshape election administration, striking down key portions of an executive order that would create a federally compiled list of eligible voters and impose new restrictions on mail-in ballots ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani of Massachusetts ruled that the administration exceeded its constitutional authority, becoming the fourth federal judge to reject major provisions of Trump’s March 31 executive order on elections.

“The President ‘plays no direct role in the process’ of appointing electors, ‘nor does he have authority to control the state officials who do,'” Talwani wrote in her decision, according to court filings cited by The Hill.

The ruling sided with 22 Democratic-led states, the District of Columbia, and attorneys representing Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, who argued that the Constitution gives states—not the White House—the primary authority to administer elections.

What Trump’s Order Would Have Done

Trump’s executive order, titled “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections,” directed the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration to compile state-specific lists of individuals confirmed to be U.S. citizens using federal databases. The lists would then be transmitted to state election officials before federal elections.

The order also instructed the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail-in ballots only to voters appearing on those federally compiled citizenship lists. In addition, states would have been required to use individualized Intelligent Mail barcodes on ballot envelopes so ballots could be tracked through the postal system.

The White House argued the measures were designed to strengthen election integrity by ensuring that only eligible U.S. citizens receive mail ballots. Administration officials have also urged Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, legislation that would establish proof-of-citizenship requirements for voter registration through federal law rather than executive action.

States Argued the Order Was Already Causing Harm

The Trump administration asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing the states had not yet suffered any concrete injury because federal agencies were still developing rules to implement the order.

Talwani rejected that argument.

According to The Hill, the judge noted that many states have already spent millions preparing election materials for the 2026 midterms that would no longer comply with the executive order.

Massachusetts alone has already spent approximately $3 million on mail ballot envelopes, while Maine and Rhode Island have each spent more than $50,000 on ballot materials lacking the required Intelligent Mail barcodes. Delaware also informed the court it had already purchased envelopes and had not budgeted funds to replace them.

Those expenditures demonstrated that the order was already affecting state election planning, Talwani concluded.

Constitutional Limits

Talwani’s opinion echoed earlier federal rulings that found the Constitution assigns election administration primarily to the states and Congress—not the president acting through executive order.

She ruled that key portions of Trump’s directive “unconstitutionally violate the separation of powers,” concluding that federal agencies cannot assume authority over election procedures that Congress has not granted them.

The decision follows several other court losses for the administration this week involving different parts of Trump’s election agenda, including provisions requiring documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration and expanded use of federal databases to verify voter eligibility.

USPS Says It Will Follow Court Orders

The ruling also comes as the U.S. Postal Service prepares for the 2026 election cycle.

Postmaster General David Steiner told lawmakers Wednesday that the Postal Service would comply with whatever federal court orders ultimately govern the handling of election mail, according to The Hill.

The administration is expected to appeal Thursday’s decision, setting up another chapter in the broader legal battle over the limits of presidential authority in administering federal elections.