A cluster of advocacy groups that boast veteran lawyers, voting experts and ex-judges have expanded legal challenges to Donald Trump’s authoritarian executive orders on voting and other presidential actions they see as a “war” on the rule of law in the US. Heavy legal opposition to Trump’s two executive orders on elections to curb voting rights and supplant the authority of states on election matters has come from the Democracy Defenders Fund, the Campaign Legal Center, the American Civil Liberties Union and kindred groups. These legal outfits and like-minded allies have won key lawsuits on election issues, plus litigation thwarting Trump’s moves to end birthright citizenship and a $1.8bn slush fund that could have paid money to allies including January 6 rioters he deemed were unjustly charged.
Since Trump returned to power, for instance, Democracy Defenders Fund and the Campaign Legal Center have jointly filed lawsuits against Trump’s 2025 and 2026 executive orders on voting, challenging their constitutionality to set new voting rules that by law are run by the states. Key legal briefs they filed together include an August one on behalf of several voting rights groups and local officials in two states to block Trump’s March 2026 executive order that would restrict voting by mail and authorize the US Postal Service to implement rules to that end. Other groups that have accelerated their legal challenges to Trump’s moves to thwart voting rights and expand his executive powers in other ways, include the Brennan Center for Justice, Democracy Forward, the Democratic Attorneys General Association and the Washington Litigation Group.
Last month, for instance, 24 Democratic attorney generals and other plaintiffs filed suit to block USPS from moving forward with rules to curb mail voting and in late August won a temporary 14-day restraining order from federal judge Indira Talwani in Massachusetts. In response, the DoJ’s solicitor general John Sauer on Thursday appealed to the supreme court to lift the injunction, arguing in heated words that the freeze would create “serious, irreparable harm on the federal government, the states themselves, and the voting public”. On 4 September Talwani made her injunction permanent, writing that implementing Trump’s order so close to the election “threatens disenfranchisement of millions of United States citizens who seek to vote by mail.” She also stressed that “the record includes no evidence relating to fraudulent mail voting to support the rushed implementation.” Sauer on 6 September responded with another emergency appeal to the high court urging it permit the new USPS rules to go into effect, claiming that it “does not seize control of states’ administration of elections — it simply imposes reasonable preparation requirements for certain election-related mail.” In a related twist, a detailed whistleblower complaint that Democratic senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut released last week alleged that the USPS has been proceeding with a “secretive, rushed” effort to implement Trump’s order that could lead to “catastrophic failure” with this year’s mail-in voting.
About 50 million Americans, the majority of whom are Democrats, vote by mail, according to reports. With the elections about two months away, the legal groups are stepping up efforts to thwart “self-serving attempts to take over the midterms”, said a former DoJ lawyer, which experts fear may create chaos and disenfranchise millions of voters. Anna Baldwin, director of voting rights litigation at the Campaign Legal Center, told the Guardian: “The CLC and the DDF have worked closely together on two ongoing lawsuits challenging the president’s unlawful voting executive orders that attempt to dictate election rules.
We’ve teamed up in the supreme court on a brief filed by former state and federal judges, including noted conservative judges, that emphasized just how unlawful and dangerous the president’s efforts to dictate election rules are.” Baldwin, who spent 14 years in the justice department’s civil rights division, said the CLC and the DDF have also “worked together in federal cases filed in Oregon and California to make sure that the DoJ isn’t able to seize voters’ sensitive data by making false claims about non-citizen voting. In cases around the country, the Campaign Legal Center is pushing back on the DoJ’s lawless efforts to vacuum up and aggregate sensitive data to create a national voter file of some sort.” Further, former ambassador Norm Eisen, the executive chair of the Democracy Defenders Fund, which he co-founded in 2023, told the Guardian that since its inception the DDF has been involved in more than 300 legal cases and matters in three primary areas: elections, the rule of law and anti-corruption. Eisen said the group, whose board boasts former federal judge and conservative stalwart J Michael Luttig and liberal-leaning ex-federal judge Nancy Gertner, likes to work in conjunction on cases with other ideologically diverse and nonpartisan groups like the CLC and the WLG because “they both have strong bipartisan credibility.
It’s a big-tent approach we’ve taken with our election work.” Eisen said Luttig and Gertner were instrumental in helping recruit dozens of former judges with bipartisan credentials to file amicus briefs on multiple matters including an August one to the supreme court opposing Trump’s 2026 executive order to curb mail voting. For its part, the WLG this summer hired about half a dozen new lawyers to handle election-related litigation. Elsewhere, Sophia Lin Lakin, who leads the ACLU Voting Rights Project, said the group had been “pushing back” on administration efforts to seize personal voti
Extract — continue reading at the source.
