A district court judge denied a request on Thursday by Senate Democrats for an injunction to block an executive order issued by President Donald Trump regarding mail-in voting and citizenship lists. The request was rejected on the grounds that the request did not show “that preliminary injunctive relief is warranted.”
U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols ruled that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that Trump’s executive order “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections” resulted in them suffering “imminent and irreparable harm” without an injunction or that Trump’s directive meant the plaintiffs were “likely to have Article III standing,” according to the court documents.
Recommended Stories
To have Article III standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate an actual stake in the outcome of the lawsuit and that the grievance extends beyond a mere disagreement with a law, or in this case, the executive order.
The lawsuit was filed against the Trump administration by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the League of United Latin American Citizens, and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. It was in response to Trump’s directive issued on March 31, 2026, specifying that the “right to vote in federal elections is reserved exclusively for citizens of the United States.” Any violator of this would be held accountable through the imposition of “criminal penalties.”
It also required that a list of “individuals confirmed to be United States citizens who will be above the age of 18 at the time of an upcoming Federal election and who maintain a residence in the subject State” would be provided to the secretary of Homeland Security.
“The State Citizenship List shall be updated and transmitted to State election officials no fewer than 60 days before each regularly scheduled Federal election, or promptly upon request by a State in connection with any special Federal election,” Trump’s executive order specified.
Nichols highlighted the multiple claims of the “irreparable injuries” each plaintiff would suffer due to Trump’s directive. Among them were claims of violations of members’ voting rights, the party’s electoral prospects, and assertions of a negative effect on “voter registration missions” and interference with “their primary mission of voter registration, education, and ensuring access to voting by mail.”
However, Nichols advised these grievances “failed to show that they presently have Article III standing.”
WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT THE FREEDOM 250 UFC FIGHT ON THE WHITE HOUSE LAWN
“Because Plaintiffs ‘have failed to carry their burden with respect to establishing that they have a substantial likelihood of standing based on [their alleged] injur[ies],’ they have also failed to show that those injuries are ‘certain enough and great enough to warrant preliminary injunctive relief,’” read Nichols’ ruling.
“In any event, given that the 26 Executive Order does not command Plaintiffs to do anything, and that no agency has yet acted pursuant to the Order in a way that could harm Plaintiffs, they have not suffered any harm at present, much less harm that is ‘certain,’ ‘great,’ and imminent,” Nichols said.
