Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro is taking the Trump administration to federal court over an executive order that would give the federal government unprecedented control over mail-in voting — and he’s not going alone. A coalition of more than 20 state attorneys general has joined the fight, arguing that Trump’s order on USPS ballot rules and federal voter verification lists is an unconstitutional grab at powers the Constitution assigns to states and Congress, not the White House.
What Trump’s Executive Order Actually Does
The order directs three federal agencies to overhaul how mail-in ballots are processed nationwide. USPS would be instructed to refuse delivery of ballots unless the sender appears on a federally verified eligibility list and the envelope meets new standardized design and barcode requirements. DHS would build citizenship databases to cross-reference state voter rolls. And the DOJ would be directed to prioritize investigations into local election officials who issue ballots to anyone flagged by those federal databases.
The practical problem — and Shapiro’s administration has been blunt about this — is that the federal databases being used to flag voters are frequently outdated or incomplete. Flagging a legitimate voter as ineligible based on a flawed DHS list, weeks before November, is not a procedural inconvenience. It is a potential disenfranchisement at scale. County election boards in Pennsylvania have already printed ballot materials; redesigning envelopes and integrating federal barcode portals on a compressed timeline is, in Shapiro’s words, an unworkable burden on the states running these elections.
The Supreme Court Ruled 6–3 — But Not on the Merits
The Supreme Court lifted a preliminary injunction against the executive order in a 6–3 decision, but the ruling was procedural, not a green light on the substance. The majority found that states lacked standing to challenge the order at that stage because the executive order directed federal agency action rather than immediately altering state law. It did not rule that Trump’s plan is constitutional.
That distinction matters enormously. The moment USPS released its formal enforcement rules, Shapiro and the state coalition had a new, concrete federal action to challenge directly — and they filed immediately, seeking an emergency stay before election materials go out. The constitutional question of whether the Executive Branch can dictate state election mechanics remains unanswered, and that is exactly where this legal fight is heading.
If the courts ultimately rule entirely against the administration, the consequences extend well beyond this election cycle. Permanent nationwide injunctions would strip future presidents of the ability to use USPS, DHS, or executive orders to reshape how states run their elections — a binding precedent that the administration’s broader push for federal voter verification laws, including the SAVE Act, would not survive.
Why Shapiro’s Fight Has National Stakes
Shapiro is not just defending Pennsylvania. A decisive legal win would validate the mail-in voting infrastructure that states like Michigan and Wisconsin — critical electoral battlegrounds — built after 2020, and it would do so heading into the 2026 midterms. The administration’s evident strategy has been to restrict a voting method that historically skews Democratic. A court ruling on the merits would close that lane before it can shape a national election.
“Donald Trump does not run elections here in Pennsylvania — or in any state,” Shapiro said after the Supreme Court ruling. “The U.S. Constitution makes clear that elections are to be run by the states… We’ll see the Trump Administration in court.” That is not a press release. That is a governor who has done the legal math and decided the fight is winnable.
- how Democratic governors are pushing back on Trump’s executive orders
