Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LITIGATION NEWS, TRENDS—Executive order on elections already spawning multiple lawsuits, (Apr 1, 2025)

By Brandi O. Brown, J.D.

“Not only does the Executive Order attempt to rip power away from the entities that have actual constitutional and statutory authority to regulate federal elections, it does so in violation of the text and purpose of federal laws Congress enacted to make it easier for Americans to register to vote and cast ballots in federal elections.”

Executive Order 14248, was signed by President Trump on March 25, 2025, and has already generated at least three lawsuits, including suits by the Democratic National Committee, the League of United Latin American Citizens, the League of Women Voters, and the NAACP.

E.O. and fact sheet. The order, entitled “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections,” purports to preserve and protect that integrity by, among many other things:

• Altering voter citizenship verification and banning foreign nationals from interfering in U.S. elections, by having the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) require documentary, government-issued proof of U.S. citizenship on its voter registration forms; requiring agencies such as DHS, SSA, and the State Department provide states with access to Federal databases to verify eligibility and citizenship of individuals registering to vote; and having the Attorney General prioritize prosecuting non-citizen voting and related crimes, including through use of DHS records and coordination with state attorneys general.

• Conditioning Federal election-related funds on states complying with the integrity measures set forth by federal law, including the requirement that states use the national mail voter registration form that requires proof of citizenship.

• Directing the updating of the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines 2.0 and security standards for voting equipment and prioritizing federal grant funds accordingly, including requiring a voter-verifiable paper ballot record and not using ballots in which the counted vote is contained within a barcode or QR code.

• Directing the Attorney General to enter into information-sharing agreements with state election officials to identify cases of election fraud or other violations, with non-compliant states potentially facing prioritized federal enforcement of election integrity laws and loss of funding.

• Instructing that the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security should prevent non-citizens from any involvement in administering elections.

• Instructing the Attorney General to fully enforce the voter-list maintenance requirements of the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act.

• Instructing that the Attorney General shall take appropriate action against states that count ballots received after Election Day in federal elections and conditioning federal election funding on compliance.

• Instructing that the Attorney General prioritize enforcement of laws prohibiting foreign nationals from contributing to or donating in U.S. elections.

Lawsuits. Starting on March 31, 2025, at least three lawsuits have been filed as result of the executive order.

In Democratic National Committee v. Trump, filed in the D.C. federal district court on Monday and assigned to Judge Kollar-Kotelly, the DNC alleges that in the “ironically entitled” executive order, Trump “asserts unprecedented authority for the President to dictate election rules on a host of topics.” Plaintiffs also include the Democratic Governors Association, DSCC, DCCC, Senator Chuck Schumer, and Representative Hakeem Jeffries. The complaint states: “In the United States of America, the President does not get to dictate the rules of our elections.” Nevertheless, the EO “seeks to impose radical changes on how Americans register to vote, cast a ballot, and participate in our democracy—all of which threaten to disenfranchise lawful voters and none of which is legal.”

It explains: “The Order attacks dozens of States that have properly and lawfully adopted ballot receipt deadline laws that permit mail ballots cast by election day to count if received within a certain time frame, ignoring that such laws are longstanding and represent a legitimate ‘policy choice’ by States. DNC v. Wis. State Leg., 141 S. Ct. 28, 34 (2020) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring). The Order requires that the President’s own design preferences be implemented on congressionally mandated voter registration forms, notwithstanding Congress’s clear contrary commands, imposing unjustifiable burdens on all Americans—and especially servicemembers and their families, women, and lower-income voters—attempting to register to vote in federal elections. It forces numerous federal agencies to reveal sensitive personal information about millions of voters to the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (‘DOGE’) without any consent or statutory authority. It tramples upon the independence and bipartisan structure of the Election Assistance Commission (‘EAC’), an agency created in the wake of the 2000 presidential election to improve election administration and voter access in coordination with States. And it wields federal dollars as a cudgel to force States to do the President’s bidding to the detriment of their voters, threatening to deprive them of crucial grants to fund elections and law enforcement.”

And the EO fails to “identify any legal authority he possesses to impose such sweeping changes upon how Americans vote” and this is because the President “possesses no such authority,” the complaint states. Because it does not stem from a Congressional act or from the Constitution, DNC alleges, it must be declared invalid as an unlawful exercise of authority. The claims for relief in the DNC’s complaint include counts for ultra vires Presidential action; several violations of the separation of powers; and several claims under the Administrative Procedure Act. The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief.

The case is No. 1:25-cv-00952.

In League of United Latin American Citizens v. Executive Office of the President, also filed in the D.C. federal district court on Monday, the plaintiffs, including the Secure Families Initiative and the Arizona Students’ Association, likewise challenge Executive Order 14248, alleging that the order “violates and subverts the separation of powers by lawlessly arrogating to the President authority to declare election rules by executive fiat.” It alleges that the order is “an attack on the constitutionally mandated checks and balances that keep American elections free and fair” and that the President’s action “intrudes on the states’ and Congress’s authority to set election rules in an attempt to make it far more difficult for eligible U.S. citizens to exercise their fundamental right to vote.”

The League, along with other plaintiffs named in the suit, challenge certain provisions of the order as facially unlawful and allege that, “if implemented,” they “would severely burden their protected civic engagement activity and their members’ right to vote.” They allege, among other things, that: the Executive Order asserts sweeping presidential power over federal elections; the President has no constitutional authority to dictate election rules; Congress established the Election Assistance Commission as an independent entity; Congress requires the EAC to exercise discretion subject to statutory requirements in creating the federal mail voter registration form, which must be promulgated through proper rulemaking and comply with the NVRA; the order would nullify the federal post card application for military and overseas voters; the President does not have the power to dictate state mail ballot receipt deadlines or the authority to condition the states’ receipt of federal funding from the EAC on their compliance with the EO’s provisions; and that it harms the plaintiffs.

It includes counts for ultra vires presidential action based on separation of powers; the electors and elections clauses; and the UOCAVA. It also includes counts under the Administrative Procedure Act. They request injunctive relief.

The case is No. 1:25-cv-00946.

A third lawsuit was filed today. In League of Women Voters Education Fund v. Trump, filed in D.C. federal district court, the plaintiffs likewise allege that the President was without power or authority to make or change the rules for conducting federal elections. “Not only does the Executive Order attempt to rip power away from the entities that have actual constitutional and statutory authority to regulate federal elections,” the plaintiffs allege, “it does so in violation of the text and purpose of federal laws Congress enacted to make it easier for Americans to register to vote and cast ballots in federal elections.” In addition to three League of Women Voters entities, the lawsuit was brought by the NAACP, the Hispanic Federation, the OCA-Asian Pacific American Advocates, and the Asian and Pacific Islander American Vote.

Noting that the EAC has been ordered to act within 30 days, the complaint explains that “time is of the essence.” “The Executive Order would make it impossible for Plaintiffs to use the Federal Form in efforts to register eligible voters. And it would impose a severe burden on, if not wholly disenfranchise, millions of voters—including some of Plaintiffs’ members, particularly those in Arizona who rely on the Federal Form to register to vote and update their registration—who do not have nor could easily obtain the documents the Executive Order demands.” Thus, they ask the court to: “(1) declare that the Executive Order cannot force the EAC to do anything, much less add an illegal requirement to the Federal Form, and (2) enjoin the EAC from complying with the President’s directive.”

Their suit includes counts for violation of the separation of powers doctrine as well as for equitable relief for violation of federal law.

The case is No. 1:25-cv-00955.

News: LitigationNewsTrends FedTracker LaborEmployment WhiteHouseNews AgencyNews IndividualRights