Judge lets Trump mail-in voting order stand pending agency action

A federal judge on Wednesday declined to block President Donald Trump's executive order imposing new restrictions on mail-in voting, ruling that Democratic challengers have not yet suffered harm because no federal agency has taken steps to implement the measure, The Korea Times reported.

The ruling keeps intact an order that Democratic lawyers say could disenfranchise millions of voters ahead of November's midterm elections, when Republicans and Democrats are fighting for control of both chambers of Congress.

U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee, rejected Democrats' bid for a preliminary injunction against the March 31 executive order, according to The Korea Times. The order directs federal agencies to compile lists of confirmed eligible voters using government data and instructs the U.S. Postal Service to deliver ballots only to voters who appear on approved mail-in ballot lists.

In his ruling, Nichols wrote: "Given that the Executive Order does not command Plaintiffs to do anything, and that no agency has yet acted pursuant to the Order in a way that could harm Plaintiffs, they have not suffered any harm at present."

Democrats argued the order oversteps federal authority by encroaching on states' traditional power to administer their own elections. They also warned that data from the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration may be outdated or inaccurate, potentially excluding millions of lawfully registered voters from mail-in ballot access.

The judge left open the possibility for Democrats to seek an injunction again once agencies begin concrete implementation steps. The executive order also requires states to preserve all election-related records for five years.

A separate challenge brought by a coalition of Democratic-led states is pending before Judge Indira Talwani in Boston, The Korea Times reported. Trump has repeatedly made false claims about widespread fraud in the 2020 presidential election, claims that courts and election officials have consistently rejected.

Judge Nichols' ruling does not settle the broader legal dispute — with the Boston case still pending before a separate judge, a conflicting outcome remains possible before any agency moves to enforce the order across the country.