A federal judge in Seattle ruled that the Trump administration cannot dictate how Washington and Oregon run their elections, granting the two states a sweeping injunction that cuts back key parts of an executive order aimed at reshaping election administration nationwide.
On March 25, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14248, titled: “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections.” The order attempts to impose major changes on how elections are administered, including a push to require voters to prove citizenship through formal documentation and an effort to halt vote-by-mail systems that count ballots postmarked by, but received after, Election Day.
Washington and Oregon sued in April 2025, arguing the order unlawfully targets their long-standing election systems. In both states, voting by mail is the default, and each has counted certain ballots received after Election Day for decades.
In May 2025, the states sought summary judgment, asking U.S. District Judge John H. Chun to permanently block multiple provisions of the order. The states argued the directives were unconstitutional and ultra vires — beyond the president’s lawful authority.
On Friday, Chun ruled for the plaintiffs in a 75-page decision, sharply limiting the executive order’s reach where it conflicts with state election administration.
“[T]he Constitution assigns the states all authority to regulate the time, place, and manner of elections, subject only to limitations by Congress,” the order states. “As the Constitution assigns no authority to the President over federal election administration, the President’s authority to promulgate a national ballot-receipt deadline cannot stem from the Constitution.”
The judge emphasized that, while the president holds executive power, that power does not extend to rewriting election rules by decree.
As stated by the Supreme Court, although the Constitution vests the executive power in the President, “[i]n the framework of our Constitution, the President’s power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker. Accordingly, the “Constitution entrusts Congress and the States—not the President—with the authority to regulate federal elections.”
Chun framed the dispute as a separation-of-powers fight, writing that “the heart of this matter” is that the executive order, at times arguably and at times clearly, “violates separation of powers.”
“Separation of powers was designed to implement a fundamental insight: Concentration of power in the hands of a single branch is a threat to liberty,” the judge added.
The ruling permanently blocks several provisions of the executive order and includes a declaration that the two states’ ballot-receipt deadlines are not overridden by federal law.
“The Court declares that Washington’s and Oregon’s existing laws governing ballot-receipt deadlines are not preempted,” the order continues. “Unless, and until, Congress amends these statutes or otherwise enacts a law that establishes a national ballot-receipt deadline of Election Day, the Elections Clause authorizes Washington and Oregon to maintain their existing laws, which permit the counting of certain ballots received after Election Day.”
The court also barred the federal government from requiring voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship when registering using federal forms, and it rejected the administration’s attempt to use federal funding as leverage over state voting laws.
The administration had argued it could condition “any available funding to a State” on whether the state excluded ballots received after Election Day. Chun rejected that approach.
“The President has no authority to unilaterally impose new conditions on federal funds or ‘thwart congressional will by canceling appropriations passed by Congress,'” the judge wrote, citing precedent.
The decision also foreclosed a separate argument raised by the government in another challenge to the order — that federal prosecutors could pursue “criminal” cases to enforce compliance with the proposed vote-by-mail restrictions. Chun ruled that such prosecutions are not an available enforcement path.
At the same time, the judge noted the federal government may still take “lawful, i.e. non-compulsive, actions to encourage Plaintiffs to adopt a different ballot-receipt deadline.”
Overall, Chun rejected the claim that the administration was simply enforcing existing statutes. The court found that the executive order sought authority the federal government does not have — power that “simply cannot be squared with the text, purpose, legislative history, nor historical application” of the relevant laws.
“[W]henever the President issues an executive order, the power ‘to issue the order must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself,'” Chun wrote. “If the President lacks a statutory or constitutional basis the act is unlawful.”
In closing, the judge described the decision as an effort to reset constitutional boundaries between the branches of government and the states.
“In granting this relief, the Court seeks to restore the proper balance of power among the Executive Branch, the states, and Congress envisioned by the Framers,” the court said.
