The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals handed the Trump administration a bit of another win on Tuesday, unanimously affirming D.C. District Judge Carl Nichols' denial of a preliminary injunction in a case regarding President Trump's March executive order on election integrity.
I don't mean to undersell it, but I'm calling it "a bit of" a win because it's procedural — one that does not hold that the EO is lawful (or unlawful). Instead, the appellate court agreed with the district court's determination that the plaintiffs in these consolidated cases (Democrat Party organizations and leaders) were premature with their suit — they hadn't actually sustained any concrete injuries, so they didn't have proper standing (at that point in time), and the case wasn't ripe for adjudication.
As indicated, President Trump issued an EO in March — "Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections" — that directs the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to develop state citizenship lists using federal databases and directs the United States Postal Service (USPS) to begin rulemaking on handling mail ballots. Of note, the EO repeatedly requires agencies to act only "to the extent feasible" and "consistent with applicable law."
Naturally, the plaintiff organizations had their suits on file before the ink on the EO was dry, but Nichols denied their requests for a preliminary injunction in late May. Plaintiffs appealed, and in Tuesday's ruling, the D.C. Circuit echoed Nichols' earlier decision, finding that the EO doesn't itself change election rules — it tells agencies to begin developing policies, and until agencies actually implement those policies, any injury remains speculative.
Big win from the D.C. Circuit affirming @POTUS efforts to keep our elections safe and fair. pic.twitter.com/LGBzYDQs1K
— Brett Shumate (@AAGShumate) July 28, 2026
But this is important to bear in mind: the court noted that "If the defendant agencies take steps to implement the Executive Order in a manner that violates federal law or the Constitution, Plaintiffs can promptly seek relief, which the district court and this court can decide in as expeditious a manner as circumstances require."
In other words, even though the court finds that this particular challenge is premature, that doesn't preclude it from being brought at a later date if either agency implements the EO in an unlawful manner (which, let's be honest, the plaintiffs will assert down the road regardless).
Some may wonder why the D.C. Circuit ruled this way when the 1st Circuit seemingly just ruled the opposite. Well, the key difference here is that these cases involve Democrat Party entities challenging the EO prior to its implementation, whereas the 1st Circuit case involves state plaintiffs who assert that concrete implementation steps already taken by the agencies are causing present injury to those states. So, the issues are related, but the plaintiffs and their claims are distinct.
It's important to note that while this is a "win" for the administration, it's not a blank check. Today's ruling just affirms that federal courts generally don't stop agencies from developing and implementing policies before those policies have actually taken effect. That's a procedural win for the administration today, while leaving the door open to future substantive challenges if the agencies' implementation crosses legal lines.
Editor's Note: Do you enjoy RedState's conservative reporting that takes on the radical Left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member