U.S. District Judge John H. Chun ruled Thursday that Executive Order 14248, issued in March 2025, violates the separation of powers by attempting to concentrate election regulation in the executive branch—powers the Constitution reserves exclusively for Congress and the states.

The injunction formally applies only to Washington and Oregon, the two states that brought this particular lawsuit. However, the court made clear that meaningful relief required blocking federal election officials from implementing the unlawful provisions as they relate to those states.

The ruling permanently blocks key sections of the order from being enforced in Washington and Oregon, the two states that brought the lawsuit. While the injunction formally applies only to those states, Judge Chun made clear that meaningful relief required preventing federal officials from implementing the unlawful provisions as they relate to them.

“In 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,” Judge Chun wrote. “Accordingly, the Constitution entrusts Congress and the States—not the President—with the authority to regulate federal elections.”

Executive Order 14248 sought to impose sweeping changes on state-run elections. The blocked provisions would have:

• Required documentary proof of citizenship—such as a passport, REAL ID, or military ID—when registering to vote using the federal voter registration form, replacing the current system where voters attest to citizenship under penalty of perjury.
• Threatened state funding, directing the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to withhold federal election funds from states that failed to comply.
• Mandated voting system changes, ordering the EAC to amend its certification guidelines to ban the use of barcodes or QR codes in voting machines and decertify noncompliant systems.
• Imposed a national ballot-receipt deadline, requiring states to stop counting all ballots received after Election Day—even if those ballots were postmarked on time.

Washington and Oregon, which both conduct elections almost entirely by mail, argued that these mandates created unconstitutional burdens on their election systems.

State officials testified that enforcing the executive order would impose significant administrative and financial burdens. Washington estimated spending about $237,000 simply to reprogram its voter registration database to accommodate the citizenship proof requirement. The changes, officials said, would also increase delays for applicants seeking voter registration through public assistance programs and require extensive voter education campaigns.

The court found these harms to be “concrete and imminent,” rejecting the administration’s claim that the injuries were speculative because some provisions had not been fully implemented.

One of the ruling’s most consequential findings concerns mail-in voting. The executive order directed the Attorney General to “enforce” federal election statutes—2 U.S.C. §7 and 3 U.S.C. §1—against states that counted ballots received after Election Day.

The Trump administration argued these statutes effectively establish a national ballot receipt deadline, but Judge Chun firmly rejected that view.

“The Court declares that Washington’s and Oregon’s existing laws governing ballot-receipt deadlines are not preempted by 2 U.S.C. §7 and 3 U.S.C. §1,” the opinion stated. “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.”

Under those laws, Washington counts ballots postmarked by Election Day if received within 20 days, while Oregon allows up to seven days. During the 2024 general election, Washington received nearly 120,000 valid ballots after Election Day that had been postmarked on time, and Oregon received more than 13,000.

The ruling noted that at least 14 states, along with Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Washington, D.C., accept mail-in or absentee ballots postmarked by Election Day.

Judge Chun’s opinion relied heavily on the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which grants states—subject to congressional oversight—the power to regulate the “Times, Places and Manner” of federal elections. That clause, the judge wrote, gives no direct role to the president in election administration.

The court also rejected the president’s attempt to condition federal election funding on compliance, finding that the president “has no authority to unilaterally impose new conditions on federal funds or thwart congressional will by canceling appropriations passed by Congress.”

Citing the landmark 1952 Supreme Court case Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, Judge Chun emphasized that while the Constitution vests executive power in the president, that power “refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker.”

“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,” Chun wrote, noting that the Framers deliberately denied presidents unilateral control over elections to prevent potential abuse.