Record · the original document behind a story
Application 26A124 for a stay of the injunction of Executive Order 14399
Published by U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Solicitor General on July 27, 2026.
Passages cited in the stories above
… authority under Article III, and conflicts with the correct conclusions of two courts that parallel challenges were not justiciable. See NAACP v. USPS, No. 26-5257 (D.C. Cir. July 17, 2026), slip op. 1-2 (staying injunction in parallel challenge to the Postal Service’s proposed rule); DSCC v. Trump, Nos. 26-cv-1114, 26-cv-1132, and 26-cv- 1151, 2026 WL 1487833, at *13 (D.D.C. May 28, 2026) (denying preliminary injunc- tion in parallel challenge to the Executive Order). The district court’s injunction also closely resembles one this Court stayed last year, after a district court improperly enjoined implementation of an Executive Order directing agencies to consider reduc- tions-in-force, rather than waiting for agencies to actually take those actions and then considering whether they turned out to be unlawful. Trump v. American Fed’n of Gov’t Emps., 145 S. Ct. 2635, 2635 (2025). The district court’s injunction also imposes irreparable harm on the govern- …
… stay of that injunction, but denied a stay pending appeal. See App., infra, 21a-27a. 4. The same day, applicants sought a stay in the court of appeals, asking the First Circuit to rule by the expiration of the administrative stay on July 14, 2026, and to extend the administrative stay, if it denied relief, to allow applicants to seek orderly relief from this Court. See C.A. Stay Br. 3 (July 7, 2026). But the First Circuit instead waited until July 25 to rule and denied relief. App., infra, 1a-20a. In rejecting the government’s stay request, the court of appeals first found an Article III case or controversy based on respondents’ diversion of staff time to plan for potential future implementation of the Order. See App., infra, 7a-8a. The court suggested that the Order “targets the Plaintiff States explicitly and repeatedly” by imposing obligations to “coordinate with federal officials and comply with new voting …
… 17,127. The Order identifies some provisions for inclusion in the notice of proposed rulemaking, id. § 3(b), but does not say anything about whether any or all of those provisions should also appear in any final rule, if the Postal Service chooses to issue one. Again, the Order makes clear that any rule should be promulgated “pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 401 and other applicable authority” and “ensure the faithful execution of Federal law.” Ibid. On June 2, 2026, the Postal Service issued its notice of proposed rulemaking, and the comment period closed on July 2. See Ballot Mail for Federal Elections, 91 Fed. Reg. 32,915 (June 2, 2026). No final rule has issued. Third, Section 5 of the Order tasks the Attorney General and the heads of ex- ecutive departments to take “all lawful steps to deter and address noncompliance with Federal law” governing federal elections. Order § 5, 91 Fed. Reg. at 17,127. Section 2 also outlines some priorities for the “investigation and, as appropriate, the prosecution” of State and local officials or others involved in the administration of …
… - 15 - Case: 26-1774 Document: 00118481937 Page: 16 Date Filed: 07/27/2026 Entry ID: 6828856 16a interest does not favor a stay. Rhode Island v. Trump, 155 F.4th 35, 50 (1st Cir. 2025) (citation modified). IV. CONCLUSION For all these reasons, we deny the motions to stay.9 DUNLAP, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part. I conclude that the Government and the Intervenor States have shown that Plaintiff States likely lack standing to challenge certain, though not all, aspects of Executive Order 14399 (the "EO"). 91 Fed. Reg. 17125 (Mar. 31, 2026); see TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413, 423 (2021) (to establish …
… appropriate action that is “consistent with applicable law” was entirely lawful. That the government has not tried in this posture to defend the merits of hypothetical agency action does not mean the public interest is served by precluding the Executive Branch from pursuing lawful action pursuant to a presidential directive. 30 CONCLUSION This Court should stay the injunction of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, pending the resolution of the government’s appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and any proceedings in this Court, and grant an immediate administrative stay. Respectfully submitted. D. JOHN SAUER Solicitor General JULY 2026 APPENDIX Court of appeals order denying stay (July 25, 2026) .............................................................. 1a District court memorandum and order denying stay (July 7, 2026) ...................................................................................................................21a …
… provisions should also appear in any final rule, if the Postal Service chooses to issue one. Again, the Order makes clear that any rule should be promulgated “pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 401 and other applicable authority” and “ensure the faithful execution of Federal law.” Ibid. On June 2, 2026, the Postal Service issued its notice of proposed rulemaking, and the comment period closed on July 2. See Ballot Mail for Federal Elections, 91 Fed. Reg. 32,915 (June 2, 2026). No final rule has issued. Third, Section 5 of the Order tasks the Attorney General and the heads of ex- ecutive departments to take “all lawful steps to deter and address noncompliance with Federal law” governing federal elections. Order § 5, 91 Fed. Reg. at 17,127. Section 2 also outlines some priorities for the “investigation and, as appropriate, the prosecution” of State and local officials or others involved in the administration of …
… applicants, except for President Trump, “from implementing or giving effect to Sec- tions 2 and 3 of the EO with respect to the November 3, 2026 or any earlier federal election in the Plaintiff States.” Id. at 61a. 3. Applicants promptly appealed the district court’s summary-judgment order and also sought a stay pending appeal of its injunction. D. Ct. Docs. 192, 193 (July 1, 2026). On July 7, 2026, the district court granted a seven-day administrative 9 stay of that injunction, but denied a stay pending appeal. See App., infra, 21a-27a. 4. The same day, applicants sought a stay in the court of appeals, asking the First Circuit to rule by the expiration of the administrative stay on July 14, 2026, and to extend the administrative stay, if it denied relief, to allow applicants to seek orderly relief from this Court. See C.A. Stay Br. 3 (July 7, 2026). But the First Circuit …
… State, a list of United States citizens above the age of 18 and residing in the State at the time of an upcoming federal election. See Order § 2(a), 91 Fed. Reg. at 17,125- 17,126. The Order specifically contemplates that the Secretary will establish proce- dures for individuals to access, update, or correct their own records and for States to supplement or suggest modifications to the lists. Order § 2(a), 91 Fed. Reg. at 17,125. These “State Citizenship List[s]” are to “be updated and transmitted to State election officials no fewer than 60 days before each regularly scheduled Federal Election.” Ibid. The Order does not purport to require States to use the lists at all, let alone in any particular way, once transmitted. See § 2(a), 91 Fed. Reg. at 17,125-17,126. Crit- ically, the Order makes clear that DHS may compile and transmit the lists only “[t]o the extent feasible and consistent with applicable law, including but not limited to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a).” § 2(a), 91 Fed. Reg. at 17,125. This specific …
… with regard to elections occurring after November 3, 2026. Mem. & Order [Doc. No. 190]. For the foregoing reasons, as to the November 3, 2026 election, and all earlier elections, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 154] pursuant to Federal Rules of Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) is DENIED and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 97] pursuant to Rule 56 is GRANTED. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and DECLARED that Sections 2 and 3 of the EO are legally void as they are ultra vires and unconstitutionally violate the separation of powers, and that Section 5 of the EO is merely precatory. In addition, other than the President, Defendants and their officers, agents, servants, and employees are hereby ENJOINED from implementing or giving effect to Sections 2 and 3 of the EO with respect to the November 3, 2026 or any earlier federal election in the Plaintiff States as follows: a. Defendants United States Department of Justice, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, …
… v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. ─────────── APPLICATION FOR A STAY OF THE INJUNCTION ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS AND REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE STAY ─────────── Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Rules of this Court and the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. 1651, the Solicitor General—on behalf of applicants Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al.—respectfully requests that this Court stay the injunction issued by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (App., infra, 61a-64a) pending appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and, if the court of appeals affirms the order, pending the timely filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari and any further proceedings in this Court. The Solicitor General also respectfully requests an immediate administrative stay of the injunction to prevent the threat of irreparable injury while this application is pending. The district court has issued an extraordinary injunction barring federal agen- cies from implementing an Executive Order promoting election integrity in the up- coming federal elections in November. The injunction is particularly remarkable be- …
… ful, there is not enough time to obtain ordinary appellate relief from the injunction in order to carry them out before the November election, especially given that any such plans will need to be implemented well before November given the timing of election procedures concerning voter-roll verification and mail voting. Accordingly, this Court should grant a stay pending further review and an immediate administrative stay. In March of this year, President Trump signed Executive Order 14,399, titled “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections.” 91 Fed. Reg. 17,125 (Mar. 31, 2026) (Executive Order or Order). The Executive Order is a directive from the President to several of his subordinates in the Executive Branch, aimed at “enhanc[ing] election integrity via the United States Mail,” “reducing the risk of fraud,” and “protecting the integrity of Federal elections.” Id. § 1, 91 Fed. Reg. at 17,125. The Order is not self-executing. Rather, it contemplates that the relevant officials and agencies will, on specified timetables, consider and potentially take ac- …
Read the original · Open the copy we saved
Where we use it
About this saved copy
The fingerprint identifies the saved text used for this record. A different copy has a different fingerprint.
- Text fingerprint (SHA-256)
5b1b4cf0e87cfda02130fadd607edf0caa3df4ed5baa44611c3875271f802538