Published July 25, 2026 at 4:01 PM ET · Updated July 26, 2026 at 12:05 AM ET
Appeals court rules Trump cannot implement mail-in voting order
6 independent outlets are covering this story. Verification: Confirmed — reported independently by wire/mainstream and conservative outlets. Patriot Watch links to original reporting; we don't republish it.
A federal appeals court has upheld injunctions blocking President Donald Trump's executive order restricting mail-in voting. The ruling prevents the administration from implementing the order in 23 states ahead of the midterm elections.
Patriot Watch first flagged this story 9 hr ago, when Reuters via Google News reported it. Coverage has since grown to 6 independent outlets, including 4 wire/mainstream feeds. The most recent report came 5 hr ago from New York Times. Verification tier: Confirmed — reported independently by wire/mainstream and conservative outlets.
⚖ The Constitutional Angle
The Elections Clause commits election rules to state legislatures acting as ordinary lawmakers, constrained by state constitutions and subject to judicial review, with Congress the sole federal override. Arizona State Legislature v. AIRC and Moore v. Harper confirm that authority runs through the prescribed lawmaking process. Nothing in that framework vests the President with power to set voting rules by decree.
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission 576 U.S. 787 (2015)
Vote: 5-4 · Opinion: Justice Ginsburg
(1) The Arizona Legislature had Article III standing because Proposition 106 completely nullified any vote it could take on congressional redistricting. (2) On the merits, the Elections Clause and 2 U.S.C. § 2a(c) permit the people of a state, by initiative, to vest congressional redistricting authority in an independent commission: 'Legislature' encompasses the state's entire prescribed lawmaking process, and redistricting is lawmaking in its essential features.
Moore v. Harper 600 U.S. 1 (2023)
Vote: 6-3 · Opinion: Chief Justice Roberts
(1) Jurisdiction: the case was not moot — the parties retained a personal stake because Harper III did not disturb Harper I's judgment invalidating the 2021 maps. (2) Merits: the Elections Clause does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to regulate federal elections; when a legislature acts under the Clause it exercises lawmaking power constrained by the state constitution and subject to ordinary state judicial review (Marbury tradition; ASL v. AIRC; Smiley v. Holm). The maximal independent-state-legislature theory is rejected.
Precedent facts from the PW Law Library — primary-source verified & independently audited
