State of California v. Trump (2026)

Public Rights Project filed an amicus brief in a case challenging President Trump’s March 2026 executive order on voter citizenship verification and mail voting procedures. The brief supports the plaintiffs’ requests to block the executive order and issue a summary judgment.

The executive order expands the federal government’s role in election administration. It directs the U.S. Postal Service to create pre-approved lists of voters eligible to receive mail ballots and directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide states with lists of individuals it deems to be citizens in each state. It also prioritizes federal criminal prosecution of election officials who provide ballots to individuals the federal government deems ineligible. However, the government’s proposed verification process relies on databases known to have inaccurate citizenship data, possibly disenfranchising eligible voters.

The brief supports the plaintiffs’ argument that the executive order is unconstitutional and violates federal laws. It explains that the executive order would severely disrupt election administration and expose election officials to significant financial and legal risk. Noncompliance could lead to:

• Frivolous federal investigations that create legal obstacles and financial harm for election officials
• Federal election administration funds being withheld from local governments
• Widespread confusion and disruption during the 2026 midterm election cycle, which is already in motion

The executive order ultimately threatens every voter’s right to a free and fair election — forcing local election officials into an impossible position: comply with unlawful federal demands or protect eligible voters from having their rights stripped away.

Read the amicus brief.

Update:

On August 3, 2026, Public Rights Project and the Center for Election Innovation and Research urged the U.S. Supreme Court to stop President Trump’s executive order from taking effect. 118 current and former election officials joined our amicus brief.

Co-drafted with Washington Litigation Group, the brief asks the court to reject the government’s request to pause a lower court’s block on the order while the appeal moves forward. If the Supreme Court sides with the federal government, the executive order would take effect with preparations for elections already underway. 

Relying on the experiences of election officials, we highlight the immediate harm election officials will face if the order is implemented, ultimately impacting voters. We argue that:

• Midterm election preparation could be disrupted: Election officials may be forced to pull staff off existing work and spend unbudgeted money to comply with the order.
• Election officials face an untenable position: Criminal prosecution is being threatened if election officials don’t implement the unlawful and confusing order. The order could also force election officials to violate voting rights laws.

• Federal databases are not designed for voter registration: The state citizenship lists mandated in the executive order will inevitably contain errors and place substantial administrative burdens on election officials.

Why it matters now

These legal threats are already harming election preparations by deterring staff, volunteers, and contractors from assisting in election administration. Courts have long warned against changing the rules so close to an election. The lower court’s ruling to block the order will preserve the status quo for the 2026 election cycle.

Read the amicus brief.