---

Press Release:

Law­suit Over Unlaw­ful Exec­u­tive Order Seek­ing to Impose Sweep­ing Vot­ing Restric­tions

Preceding Event:

On March 25, 2025, Pres­i­dent Don­ald Trump signed Exec­u­tive Order 14248 (EO) aimed at impos­ing vot­ing restric­tions across the coun­try. The EO dis­al­lows the accep­tance of mail-in bal­lots after Elec­tion Day, regard­less of when the bal­lot was mailed. The EO requires proof of cit­i­zen­ship from those enrolled in pub­lic assis­tance pro­grams and the cer­ti­fi­ca­tion of vot­ing sys­tems. A sig­nif­i­cant, repeat­ed part of the EO threat­ens to with­hold fund­ing to the states if they are deemed non­com­pli­ant with new pro­vi­sions.

General Overview:

The law­suit argued that the EO, referred to in the law­suit as the “Elec­tions Exec­u­tive Order”, vio­lates the prin­ci­ple that “The Pres­i­dent has no con­sti­tu­tion­al pow­er to rewrite State elec­tion laws by decree, nor does the Pres­i­dent have the author­i­ty to mod­i­fy the rules Con­gress has cre­at­ed for elec­tions.”

Essen­tial­ly, the plain­tiffs argued, Con­gress and the states them­selves are the only bod­ies that have the author­i­ty to reg­u­late how elec­tions are con­duct­ed, and thus the EO exceeds the scope of the Pres­i­den­t’s pow­ers. “It inter­feres with States’ inher­ent sov­er­eign­ty and their con­sti­tu­tion­al pow­er to reg­u­late the time, place, and man­ner of fed­er­al elec­tions,” the law­suit said. “It also usurps Congress’s pow­ers to leg­is­late (under the Elec­tions Clause) and to appro­pri­ate (under the Spend­ing Clause) because Con­gress has not cho­sen to imple­ment the changes the Pres­i­dent seeks to impose by decree.

The crit­i­cal funds at issue have in large mea­sure already been appro­pri­at­ed by Con­gress. And if these coer­cive threats were not enough, the Elec­tions EO threat­ens to tar­get Plain­tiff States with Depart­ment of Jus­tice inves­ti­ga­tions and poten­tial pros­e­cu­tion.”

Con­necti­cut Attor­ney Gen­er­al William Tong joined a coali­tion of 19 attor­neys gen­er­al in fil­ing the law­suit.

Date of filing:

April 3, 2025

Case #:

1:25-cv-10810

Case title:

State of Cal­i­for­nia et al v. Trump et al

Plaintiffs: 19 states

• STATE OF CALIFORNIA;
• STATE OF NEVADA;
• COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS;
• STATE OF ARIZONA;
• STATE OF COLORADO;
• STATE OF CONNECTICUT;
• STATE OF DELAWARE;
• STATE OF HAWAII;
• STATE OF ILLINOIS;
• STATE OF MAINE;
• STATE OF MARYLAND;
• PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN;
• STATE OF MINNESOTA;
• STATE OF NEW JERSEY;
• STATE OF NEW MEXICO;
• STATE OF NEW YORK;
• STATE OF RHODE ISLAND;
• STATE OF VERMONT;
• STATE OF WISCONSIN,

Defendants:

• DONALD J. TRUMP, in his offi­cial capac­i­ty as Pres­i­dent of the Unit­ed States;
• PAMELA BONDI, in her offi­cial capac­i­ty as Attor­ney Gen­er­al of the Unit­ed States;
• UNITED STATES ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION;
• DONALD L. PALMER, in his offi­cial capac­i­ty as Chair­man of the U.S. Elec­tion Assis­tance Com­mis­sion;
• THOMAS HICKS, in his offi­cial capac­i­ty as Vice Chair of the U.S. Elec­tion Assis­tance Com­mis­sion;
• CHRISTY McCORMICK and BENJAMIN W. HOVLAND, in their offi­cial capac­i­ties as Com­mis­sion­ers of the U.S. Elec­tion Assis­tance Com­mis­sion;
• PETE HEGSETH, in his offi­cial capac­i­ty as Sec­re­tary of Defense

Court:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Status as of Dec. 1, 2025:

OPEN
Last fil­ing: Nov. 24, 2025

---