Far-Left Activist First Circuit Judges Block Trump’s Historic Election Integrity Executive Order in 23 Blue States — Protecting Mail-In Ballot Chaos Ahead of 2026 Midterms

A Biden-appointed majority on the First Circuit Court of Appeals handed President Donald Trump a major setback Saturday, refusing to lift an injunction blocking key election-integrity provisions of his executive order in 23 states and the District of Columbia.

The three-judge panel denied emergency stay requests filed by the Trump administration and 12 Republican-led states, leaving in place a lower-court order that prevents the Department of Homeland Security from distributing federal citizenship lists and blocks the U.S. Postal Service from applying new mail-ballot requirements in the plaintiff states for elections held on or before November 3, 2026.

Judges Gustavo Gelpí and Julie Rikelman, both appointed to the First Circuit by Joe Biden, formed the majority.

Trump-appointed Judge Joshua Dunlap concurred in part and dissented in part, arguing that the states lacked standing to block DHS from merely providing citizenship information.

The ruling is not a final decision on the administration’s appeal. Instead, the 20-page court order denies the administration’s request to suspend the injunction while the appeal proceeds.

The administration could now seek emergency relief from the U.S. Supreme Court.

President Trump issued Executive Order 14399, titled “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections,” on March 31 to enforce existing federal law that reserves federal elections exclusively for U.S. citizens and to bring basic accountability to the chaotic, fraud-prone mail-in ballot process.

Keep reading

The Fight for Election Day Is Now at the Supreme Court

Recently the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in one of the most consequential election integrity cases in years – Watson v. Republican National Committee. The core question: Does federal law require that mail-in ballots be received by Election Day, or can states extend that deadline by days – or longer – after the election has concluded?

This is a case the ACLJ has been fighting. As we reported earlier this year, we filed an amicus brief at the Supreme Court on behalf of 29 Members of Congress – urging the Court to hold that Election Day means exactly what it says: one day. The arguments we put before the Court echoed throughout the chamber.

Mississippi passed a law allowing absentee ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if received up to five business days after the election. Mississippi is one of 14 states with such a grace period. The Republican National Committee sued, arguing the practice is preempted by the federal statutes that Congress enacted in 1845 and 1872 establishing a single, uniform Election Day for federal elections.

Take action with the ACLJ. Add your name to our petition: Defend Election Integrity.

The ACLJ’s Arguments Took Center Stage

Election Day means a single day. The central pillar of our brief was that Congress exercised its explicit constitutional authority to establish Election Day as one specific day – not a window, not a period. Justice Alito made this exact argument from the bench, noting that Labor Day, Memorial Day, and Independence Day are all particular days, not extended periods – and Election Day should be no different. That is the ACLJ’s argument, made on behalf of 29 Members of Congress, now voiced by Justice Alito.

Keep reading