Over 250 Current & Former Members of Congress Urge Supreme Court to Block Trump’s Executive Order Limiting Mail Voting

Current and former Members of Congress mobilized in a court filing challenging the legality of President Donald Trump’s Executive Order seeking to exert control over mail-in ballots ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. The effort was led by House Administration Ranking Member Joe Morelle; Assistant House Minority Leader Joe Neguse, who leads the House Democrats’ Litigation Task Force; and Task Force Co-Chairs Oversight Ranking Member Robert Garcia and Judiciary Ranking Member Jamie Raskin. In the Senate, the brief was championed by Rules Committee Ranking Member Alex Padilla; Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer; Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dick Durbin; and Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Ranking Member Gary Peters.

The group, made up of a bipartisan, bicameral coalition of 261 lawmakers, filed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court of the United States in the matter of United States Postal Service, et al., v. State of California, et al., a lawsuit brought by a coalition of State Attorneys General against the U.S. Postal Service. The court case challenges a Final Rule issued by the USPS pursuant to Trump’s directive that imposes unconstitutional and unworkable restrictions on mail-in voting, including requiring states to provide a “citizenship verification list” and attempting to give USPS control over who can vote by mail.

One-third of Americans are expected to vote by mail in the upcoming midterm elections—a voting practice Donald Trump himself used as recently as August 2026, when the president voted in Florida’s Republican primary.

In the court filing, the amici curiae argue that Trump’s Executive Order 14399, “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections,” violates the separation of powers and usurps congressional authorities outlined in Article I of the U.S. Constitution, which gives the states and Congress exclusive authority over election administration.

“As current and former legislators, amici took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States—including its guarantee of the separation of powers. Amici have a particular interest in defending the institutional role of the Legislative Branch under Article I of the Constitution and in vindicating the long-settled principle that the Constitution commits ultimate regulatory authority over federal elections to Congress. The Constitution does not contemplate the Executive Branch acting unilaterally to assert power over federal elections. Yet that is what the Order and Final Rule do,” wrote the lawmakers. 

The amici also pointed to a recent federal court ruling blocking the USPS from implementing its newly finalized mail ballot rule for the midterm elections, saying the agency lacked the authority to implement the rule and that its actions are “substantively unconstitutional and contrary to law.”

“The district court correctly concluded that Appellees are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims that USPS lacked authority to issue the Final Rule, that the Final Rule unconstitutionally imposes mail-ballot requirements on the States, and that the Final Rule unconstitutionally bars non-compliant State and local election officials from using the USPS to mail ballots at all.”

The group concluded by asserting States’ power to administer elections and Congress’s power to make or alter rules regulating elections, which the Supreme Court itself has described as an “override” authority. The president’s illegal incursion on this authority is an attempt to disenfranchise people who depend on mail-in ballots to vote.

The lawmakers concluded: “The integrity of our constitutional system depends on each branch keeping to its assigned role. The Framers set up a two-part system that gave the States default authority to regulate federal elections subject to Congress’s authority to override the States. The Framers did not provide the President with any authority to interfere in that system, nor has Congress imbued the Executive Branch with any such authority by statute.”

Click HERE to view the full brief.

Keep scrolling to see what leading lawmakers had to say about the matter.

 “The Constitution is clear that the states and Congress make the rules for federal elections, not the President. Yet, in utter defiance of the Constitution, President Trump is attempting to use the Postal Service to decide who can and cannot receive a ballot just days before mail-in voting begins in some of the states. This is a naked power grab by a historically unpopular President—who himself regularly votes by mail—to inject confusion and chaos into our elections in a last-ditch effort to keep his party in power. It will not work. I’m proud to stand with a strong bipartisan, bicameral group of current and former colleagues in urging the court to continue rejecting this lawless election interference,” said Ranking Member Jamie Raskin.

“Presidents do not control our elections—the American people do. Today, in a bipartisan agreement, Members defended the constitutional authority of Congress and deliberately chose to protect our elections from executive overreach. Our elections are safe and secure, and we intend to keep them that way. We will not allow USPS to put Americans’ ballots at risk,” said Ranking Member Joe Morelle.

“The law is clear: states and Congress have authority over our elections — not the President and certainly not the Postal Service. Protecting the right to vote-by-mail is critical to ensure every eligible voter can make their voices heard in the November midterm elections and in future elections,” said Senator Alex Padilla. “Despite the Trump Administration’s attempts to eliminate vote by mail and suppress voter participation, voting by mail remains one of the most safe and secure ways to vote, especially for service members, rural voters, and Americans living abroad. I urge the courts to uphold our Constitution and reject Trump’s attacks on our fundamental right to vote.”

“Donald Trump is trying to unconstitutionally rig the midterm elections because he knows that's the only way he can hold on to power. This scheme could potentially stop millions of American citizens from receiving their ballots and having their vote counted. We are fighting this in court and defending the Constitution,” said Ranking Member Robert Garcia.

“Donald Trump’s attacks on mail-in voting are in direct contravention of the U.S. Constitution. His executive order and the USPS actions to implement it would disenfranchise millions of Americans, silencing an untold number of citizens that rely on mail ballots to make their voices heard. But the right to vote is sacrosanct, and we’ll do whatever it takes to protect it,” said House Assistant Minority Leader Joe Neguse. “I’m proud to see the outpouring of support from current and former Members of Congress—across the political spectrum—to assert the rule of law in this matter and to stand up for the right of every eligible voter to fairly cast their ballot.”

“Donald Trump is once again asking the highest court in the land to silence voters and destroy the precious integrity of the American electoral process,” said Leader Schumer. “Mail-in voting is proven safe and secure, and Trump’s continued efforts to obstruct America’s free and fair elections are blatant, unconstitutional attempts at interfering with the November midterms. Trump’s message to the American people is clear: he isn’t worried about voter fraud, he’s afraid of voter accountability. I urge the court to uphold the Constitution and reject Trump’s baseless attempt at poisoning our democracy.”

Background

The Litigation Task Force launched in the first month that followed President Donald Trump’s chaotic return to office. We immediately set out to push back against an administration showing no respect for the Constitution or rule of law—and we haven’t stopped since. Our first amicus brief, filed in February 2025, defended American consumers from predatory lenders and other bad actors and helped persuade a federal judge to block efforts to dismantle the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). 

Since then, the Task Force has directly responded to a myriad of other unlawful directives issued by the Trump administration, including simultaneously filing a court motion challenging the legitimacy of the president’s corrupt attempt to “settle” his lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) — an agency he oversees — in exchange for the creation of a $1.7 billion slush fund for political allies. 

For more information on the Litigation Task Force’s efforts to protect Americans against the unlawful actions of the Trump administration, visit litigationandresponse.house.gov.