A federal judge in Seattle blocked most of President Trump’s March executive order from being applied to Washington and Oregon, both vote‑by‑mail states. U.S. District Judge John H. Chun ruled the order exceeded presidential authority and violated the Constitution’s separation of powers. The order would have required documentary proof of citizenship for registrations and required that all mail ballots be received by Election Day — changes officials said could have discarded thousands of valid ballots. The decision affirms that Congress and state governments control federal election rules.
Federal Judge Blocks Key Parts Of Trump’s Election Order Targeting Vote‑By‑Mail States
FILE -Olive, 4, deposits an election ballot into a drop box in Seattle, Wash. under the supervision of her mother, on Nov. 4, 2025. (AP Photo/Cedar Attanasio, File)
A federal judge in Seattle has barred most of President Donald Trump’s March executive order on elections from being enforced against Washington and Oregon, two states that conduct elections primarily by mail. U.S. District Judge John H. Chun concluded that central provisions of the order exceeded the president’s authority and conflicted with the Constitution’s allocation of election regulation to Congress and the states.
What the Court Decided
Judge Chun enjoined enforcement of major parts of the executive order, including requirements that registrants provide documentary proof of citizenship and that all mailed ballots be received by Election Day. The ruling follows similar decisions in cases from Massachusetts and Washington, D.C., which also found the order went beyond executive power.
“Today’s ruling is a huge victory for voters in Washington and Oregon, and for the rule of law,” Washington Attorney General Nick Brown said. "The court enforced the long-standing constitutional rule that only States and Congress can regulate elections, not the Election Denier-in-Chief."
Background
The March executive order sought to impose new federal conditions on how states run federal elections: documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration and a requirement that every mail ballot be received by Election Day, rather than accepted if postmarked by that day. The order also threatened to cut federal funding for states that did not comply.
Practical Impact
Oregon and Washington, which accept ballots that are postmarked by Election Day even if they arrive later, argued the order would disenfranchise thousands of voters. During the 2024 general election, Washington counted nearly 120,000 ballots that were received after Election Day but postmarked by it; Oregon officials reported nearly 14,000 such ballots.
Legal Reasoning
Judge Chun emphasized separation of powers: the Constitution grants Congress and the states—not the president—the primary authority to set rules for federal elections. Because the challenged provisions attempted to dictate state election procedures and attach federal funding conditions, the court found they exceeded executive authority.
Reactions and Context
Oregon and Washington brought separate suits from other challengers because, as exclusively vote‑by‑mail states, they face distinct harms if the rule had taken effect. The administration and allied Republicans have argued concerns about noncitizen voting; experts and election officials say such incidents are rare. Individuals who illegally vote can face felony charges and potential deportation.
The administration may appeal the ruling; for now, Washington and Oregon can continue accepting ballots postmarked by Election Day even if received afterward.
Help us improve.
