Why It Matters
A coalition of more than 20 Democratic states has filed a federal lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting mail-in ballots, raising significant constitutional questions about the authority of the federal government over state-run elections. New Hampshire, alongside other Democratic-led states, is part of a growing legal battle that could reshape how millions of Americans cast their votes.
The outcome of the litigation could have far-reaching consequences for election administration across the country, particularly in states that rely heavily on mail voting as an accessible option for millions of registered voters.
What Happened
On Friday, April 3, 2026, a coalition of more than 20 states — led by California, Massachusetts, Nevada, and Washington — along with the District of Columbia, filed a lawsuit in federal court in Massachusetts seeking to block Trump’s mail-in ballot executive order. Trump signed the order on Tuesday, March 31, 2026.
The states argue that the order violates the U.S. Constitution, which grants states the primary authority to administer their own elections. They further contend that only Congress — not the president acting unilaterally — holds the power to override state election regulations under federal law.
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell issued a statement in conjunction with the filing. “Though the President may wish he had unlimited power to restrict voting rights, the Constitution gives states — not the White House — the authority to oversee elections,” Campbell said.
Friday’s lawsuit marks at least the fifth separate legal challenge filed against the executive order since it was signed. Earlier suits were brought by the Democratic National Committee, top congressional Democrats, the American Civil Liberties Union, the League of Women Voters, and the League of United Latin American Citizens, among other voting rights organizations.
By the Numbers
20+ — Number of states and the District of Columbia joining the coalition lawsuit filed in Massachusetts federal court.
5 — Minimum number of separate legal challenges filed against Trump’s mail-in ballot executive order as of April 3, 2026.
4 — Lead states coordinating the multistate lawsuit: California, Massachusetts, Nevada, and Washington.
3 days — Time elapsed between Trump signing the executive order on March 31 and the filing of this multistate lawsuit on April 3.
Dozens — Number of national organizations, including major civil liberties and voting rights groups, that have filed or joined related legal actions against the order.
Zoom Out
The lawsuit is part of a broader pattern of Democratic-led states using federal courts to challenge executive actions by the Trump administration. Protests against the Trump administration have also taken place across New Hampshire, reflecting ongoing public debate over federal authority and civil liberties at the state level.
Nationally, legal experts have described Trump’s executive order on mail-in ballots as an unprecedented assertion of presidential authority over election administration — a domain traditionally reserved for state governments under the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause. Similar conflicts between federal executive power and state sovereignty have accelerated across multiple policy areas since Trump’s return to office in January 2025.
Mail-in voting expanded significantly during the 2020 election cycle and has remained a central point of political contention. Republicans have broadly sought to limit its use, citing concerns over election integrity, while Democrats argue that restrictions disproportionately affect elderly, disabled, and rural voters.
What’s Next
The multistate lawsuit will now proceed in federal district court in Massachusetts, where plaintiffs will likely seek a preliminary injunction to halt enforcement of the executive order while litigation continues. Given the number of overlapping lawsuits, federal courts may eventually consolidate related cases or allow them to proceed on parallel tracks.
The legal challenges could ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court if lower courts issue conflicting rulings on the constitutionality of the order. In the near term, election administrators in affected states are expected to continue their current mail-in voting procedures while the courts weigh the legal questions involved.
Congressional Democrats have also indicated ongoing legislative and procedural responses, though the Republican-controlled Congress has shown limited appetite for action that would counter the administration’s position on election policy.