USCIS and USPS refuse to implement administration's order to purge non-citizens from mail-voting rolls

On March 31, 2026, President Trump signed Executive OrderExecutive OrderA written directive from the President directing federal agencies to implement or change policy without requiring congressional approval.Key ConceptExecutive OrderA written directive from the President directing federal agencies to implement or change policy without requiring congressional approval.Open conceptBookmark 14399, directing federal agencies to remove non-citizens from state mail-voting rolls and disclose citizenship data to states. (White House) The EO invoked presidential authority under the Elections ClauseElections ClauseConstitutional provision giving states and Congress power over federal electionsKey ConceptElections ClauseConstitutional provision giving states and Congress power over federal electionsOpen conceptBookmark (Article I, Section 4), which allows Congress to set the time, place, and manner of federal elections. Under the EO, the Social Security Administration and Census Bureau were ordered to share citizenship status with states; the Postal Service was directed to halt mail delivery to addresses with ineligible voters; and the Department of Homeland Security (USCIS) was told to provide federal citizenship records to state election officials. (Federal Register)

On May 7, 2026, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services filed a court declaration stating it can't comply with the executive order without violating the Privacy Act and requiring 18-24 months of IT work. (Government Executive) USCIS deputy associate director Michael Mayhew wrote that the EO's demand to disclose federal citizenship data conflicts with federal law: the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) prohibits the agency from sharing personal records without explicit legal authorization. (Court Declaration) Mayhew wrote that USCIS systems don't currently track "present" citizenship status, only historical data, and that creating a real-time citizenship registry tied to mail-voting rolls would require reengineering the entire database architecture.

The U.S. Postal Service separately filed a court declaration on May 7, 2026, stating it won't halt mail delivery based on citizenship status. (Court Declaration) Postal Service chief customer and marketing officer Steven Monteith wrote that USPS operates under the Postal Reorganization Act (39 U.S.C. 101), which establishes USPS as an independent agency with its own governance structure, not subject to presidential orders absent explicit congressional authorization. (Government Executive) Monteith said stopping mail delivery to voters would require the Postal Service to build a citizenship database it doesn't maintain and violates its statutory duty to deliver mail to all addresses. Mail is processed in bulk at regional distribution centers, not screened by individual voter eligibility at the address level.

The Social Security Administration also filed a May 7 declaration. SSA official Jessica Burns MacBride wrote that the EO's request to disclose citizenship status to states can't be done at scale without congressional action. (Government Executive) The Privacy Act applies to SSA records just as it applies to USCIS. SSA holds death data and citizenship information for 330 million Social Security account holders, but the EO provided no legal mechanism for sharing individual citizen records with 50 state election officials.

The EO faces at least five lawsuits in federal court. The League of Women Voters and civil rights groups filed in the District of Massachusetts on April 2, 2026. Common Cause, the NAACP, and Black Voters Matter filed in the District of Columbia on April 3. (Votebeat) California Attorney General Rob Bonta co-led a coalition of 23 state attorneys general, plus the Governor of Pennsylvania, in a third lawsuit filed in the District of Massachusetts on April 3. (California AG) All lawsuits argue the EO violates the Elections Clause, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Voting Rights ActVoting Rights ActFederal statute prohibiting racial discrimination in voting and establishing federal oversight of election administration in jurisdictions with histories of discrimination.Key ConceptVoting Rights ActFederal statute prohibiting racial discrimination in voting and establishing federal oversight of election administration in jurisdictions with histories of discrimination.Open conceptBookmark.

The Elections Clause gives Congress (not the President alone) power to set the "time, place, and manner" of federal elections. (Brennan Center) Trump's attorneys argued in March that the President has inherent executive power over "manner" via the Elections Clause because he enforces federal law. But the Constitution Annotated and mainstream election law scholars argue the Elections Clause delegates that power to Congress. (Lawfare) No prior President has claimed independent Elections Clause power. The lawsuits argue the EO is unconstitutional executive overreach.

The Administrative Procedure Act requires agencies to publish proposed rules in the Federal Register, allow public comment for 30+ days, and consider alternatives before finalizing regulations. (Lawfare) The EO didn't go through notice-and-comment. Instead, Trump ordered agencies to "immediately" comply. Civil rights groups argue the USCIS citizenship-data-sharing directive is a rule requiring APA process. DOJ hasn't yet filed a brief defending the EO's APA compliance, though the hearing on June 2, 2026 will likely force that argument.

Data from 2020 and 2022 shows mail voters are older, whiter, and more suburban than in-person Election Day voters. (Brennan Center) States with higher mail-voting rates include both Republican strongholds (Arizona, Utah) and Democratic strongholds (California, Oregon). Removing even small numbers of voters from mail rolls based on citizenship status could shift outcomes in close elections. The EO's supporters say it's election integrity; opponents say it's voter suppression targeting mail voters.

The courts' decisions will turn on three legal questions: (1) Does the President have independent Elections Clause power, or is that power reserved to Congress? (2) Did the EO violate the Administrative Procedure Act by bypassing notice-and-comment? (3) Does the EO violate the Voting Rights Act by disproportionately removing voters from protected classes? (CRS) Federal judges in Massachusetts and D.C. are likely to issue preliminary injunctions if they find the plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.

State officials are divided on compliance. Republican-led states have signaled they would accept USCIS citizenship lists if provided, though USCIS says it can't provide them. (Time) Missouri Attorney General Hanaway leads a coalition defending the EO. (Missouri AG) Democratic-led states are refusing to build the backend systems needed to match federal citizenship data to mail-voting databases, citing privacy and logistical concerns.

37 Democratic U.S. senators signed a letter to Postmaster General David Steiner and the USPS Board of Governors urging the Postal Service not to implement the executive order, pointing out that the President has no authority to regulate federal elections or the Postal Service. (Senate Letter) The Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 removed the Postal Service from the President's Cabinet and put it under an independent Board of Governors. Oversight of USPS lies with the Board of Governors, the Postal Regulatory Commission, and Congress, not the President.

The broader principle at stake is separation of powersSeparation of PowersThe constitutional design that splits federal power among Congress, the executive, and the judiciary so each branch checks the others.Key ConceptSeparation of PowersThe constitutional design that splits federal power among Congress, the executive, and the judiciary so each branch checks the others.Open conceptBookmark: whether the President can unilaterally direct federal agencies to share personal data and change mail delivery procedures without congressional authorization. (NPR) If the courts uphold the EO, it would expand presidential power over elections beyond what Congress has delegated. If courts block it, the Elections Clause remains a congressional power, and future attempts to enforce election rules will require either congressional action or operating within existing legal authorities.