Elections – Citizenship verification – Executive order

Where the plaintiffs, eight nonprofit organizations involved with voter education and advocacy, have challenged Sections 2 and 3 of Executive Order 14399 (“Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections”), a motion to dismiss the complaint should be allowed in part and denied in part, as the plaintiff organizations have not alleged any final agency action in their complaint but have plausibly alleged that Section 3 of the EO violates the separation of powers doctrine, is ultra vires, violates principles of federalism, and violates their members’ right to vote.

“… The court denies dismissal of claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), finding that Plaintiff Organizations have both organizational and association standing to assert claims regarding elections on and before November 3, 2026. The court further denies dismissal of Plaintiff Organizations’ constitutional claims, Counts I–IV, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), finding that Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that Section 3 of the EO violates the separation of powers doctrine, is ultra vires, violates principles of Federalism, and violates their members’ right to vote. The court also denies dismissal of Plaintiff Organizations’ Voting Rights Act claim, Count V, but grants dismissal of Count VI, finding that Plaintiffs have failed to assert a cause of action under the Administrative Procedure Act. …

“As this court has explained, Section 3 of the EO is unconstitutional. …

“… Section 3(b) unconstitutionally inserts the Executive Branch, via the USPS, as a regulator of state mail-ballot programs where neither the Constitution nor USPS’s enabling act allow for that role.

“Therefore, Plaintiff Organizations have plausibly alleged that Section 3 of the EO violates the doctrine of Separation of Powers, is ultra vires, violates principles of Federalism, and infringes upon their right to vote, as protected by the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Nineteenth, and the Twenty-Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as implemented for elections occurring prior to or on November 3, 2026. …

“Defendants argue next that Plaintiff Organizations have failed to state a cause of action for their statutory claims for violations of the Voting Rights Act (Count V) and the Privacy Act and Administrative Procedure Act (Count VI). …

“… In their memorandum in support of their motion to dismiss, Defendants assert that Plaintiff Organizations ‘fail to identify any applicable private right of action under [the VRA] and Defendants are aware of none.’ …

“The court finds the legal issue waived for purposes of this motion to dismiss where Defendants offer no substantive discussion. … Moreover, a cursory review of the case law supports Plaintiff Organizations’ claim of a private right of action. …

“In light of the 1975 expansive amendments and legislative history, the First Circuit’s allowance of private enforcement of the VRA, and the Supreme Court’s lack of contrary instruction, the court sees no reason to interpret the language of Section 11(a) as excluding a private right of action. …

“In sum, where Plaintiffs have an implied right of action to enforce the VRA and the EO plausibly denies mail-in voters the ability to vote, Defendants’ Motion [Doc. No. 126] to dismiss Count V of Plaintiff Organizations’ Complaint [Doc. No. 1] is denied. …

“Plaintiffs assert that Section 2 of the EO violates the APA because it is contrary to the Privacy Act. … Defendants and Intervenor-Defendants argue that Plaintiff Organizations may not challenge the EO through the APA and that the Privacy Act establishes no private right of action. …

“… The APA is unavailable to challenge an executive order because ‘the President is not an agency within the meaning of’ the APA, and the issuance of an executive order is not a final agency action. …

“… While the implementation of the EO’s clear mandates may well violate both the APA and the Privacy Act, Plaintiff Organizations have not alleged any final agency action in their Complaint [Doc. No. 1]. Therefore, the court grants Defendants’ Motion [Doc. No. 126] to dismiss Plaintiff Organizations’ APA claim, asserting that Section 2 is contrary to the Privacy Act, and Count VI is dismissed without prejudice.”

League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, et al. v. Trump, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 02-370-26) (21 pages) (Talwani, J.) (Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-11549-IT) (July 22, 2026).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.