ACLU: Attorney General Eric Holder Delivers Historic Speech on Voting Rights

BOSTON – A U.S. District Court in Massachusetts ruled today that nonpartisan voting rights groups have standing and valid constitutional and statutory claims to move forward with a challenge to President Trump’s executive order (EO) restricting mail-in voting. The court reiterated earlier holdings that parts of the executive order are unconstitutional because they improperly insert the executive branch into elections, interfering with the authority of states and Congress. Among other provisions, the executive order unlawfully directs the United States Postal Service (USPS) to refuse to transmit eligible voters' ballots. The executive order has sown confusion and fear and has significantly disrupted the core of the voting rights groups’ work — to educate voters and prepare them to cast ballots. The court acknowledged this burden and added that the groups’ members “will plausibly be harmed by the EO’s implementation because those members include individuals who must rely on mail voting as they live overseas, reside out of state, have disabilities, or are unable to travel to the polls and vote in person.” The court found it “plausibly likely and imminent” that the groups’ members would be disenfranchised in the upcoming election due to the executive order. The ruling denied, in large part, the federal government and intervenor defendants’ motions to dismiss. That allows the case to move forward, including the groups’ renewed motion for a preliminary injunction to block portions of the executive order. A hearing on that motion has been scheduled for Aug. 7, 2026. The lawsuit was filed by the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, the League of Women Voters, Association of Americans Resident Overseas (AARO), U.S. Vote Foundation, OCA - Asian Pacific American Advocates (OCA), and Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. They are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), ACLU of Massachusetts, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law, Legal Defense Fund (LDF), Asian Americans Advancing Justice – AAJC (Advancing Justice – AAJC), and LatinoJustice PRLDEF. The plaintiffs and their legal counsel issued the following statement: “With the November election around the corner, the voting rights groups who filed this lawsuit should be deeply immersed in the vital work of ensuring that their members — and all eligible voters — are prepared to cast their ballots. Instead, the groups have had to limit their voter outreach and spend considerable time and money on revising materials and counseling members who are confused and fearful about the executive order’s impact on their right to vote. “We are pleased that the court recognized the disruption and chaos caused by the executive order and ruled that our clients’ claims can move forward. We are committed to fighting this unconstitutional and unlawful executive order and to protecting the right to vote, including the ability to vote by mail.” A copy of the court’s ruling can be found here: https://www.aclum.org/app/uploads/2026/04/Memorandum-and-Order-7.22.26.pdf  

BOSTON – A coalition of nonpartisan voting rights groups renewed their urgent request for a preliminary injunction to block the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) from implementing portions of President Trump’s 2026 executive order restricting mail-in voting. Their motion argues that the executive order is unconstitutional, unlawful, and harmful to voters and the organizations that serve them. The motion filed yesterday is the second time the groups have asked the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts for a preliminary injunction. Their first request was denied earlier this month on the grounds that USPS was already barred from carrying out the executive order due to a preliminary injunction issued in separate litigation in the District of Columbia. However, the District of Massachusetts court expressly said the groups could refile their request for relief if the injunction in the D.C. case was stayed. On July 17, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit stayed that injunction, allowing USPS to move forward in implementing President Trump’s order in some states. The renewed filing from the nonpartisan groups explains that the executive order is causing significant and ongoing harm to their organizations as they work to help eligible voters, including their members, prepare to cast ballots in the November election. Among other provisions, the executive order directs USPS to refuse to transmit certain voters’ ballots. The motion was filed by the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, the League of Women Voters, Association of Americans Resident Overseas (AARO), U.S. Vote Foundation, OCA - Asian Pacific American Advocates (OCA), and Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. They are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), ACLU of Massachusetts, Brennan Center for Justice, Legal Defense Fund (LDF), Asian Americans Advancing Justice – AAJC (Advancing Justice – AAJC), and LatinoJustice PRLDEF. The plaintiffs and their legal counsel issued the following statement: “The nonpartisan organizations that filed this challenge work in every state to ensure eligible voters can exercise their rights and responsibilities as U.S. citizens. Millions of those voters rely on mail ballots, including people with disabilities, students, people in rural areas, military service members, Americans living overseas, and the elderly. The threat of the U.S. Postal Service interfering with mail ballots—in violation of its Congressionally established role as a neutral mail carrier—is disrupting vital voting rights work and threatens to disenfranchise untold numbers of American citizens. “The executive order is plainly unconstitutional and unlawful; it is yet another attempt by the president to unlawfully take control of elections from the states, deter eligible voters from casting ballots, and sow chaos as the November midterms approach. We’re renewing our urgent request for a preliminary injunction to protect the right to vote, uphold the rule of law, and enable voters and voting rights organizations to continue preparing for the midterms with full access to mail voting.”

Whether Black voters will have a fair opportunity to elect judges in DeSoto County, Mississippi.

JACKSON, Miss. – The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Mississippi, Legal Defense Fund (LDF), and NAACP today moved to intervene on behalf of the DeSoto County NAACP and the Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. in Foster v. Mississippi, a lawsuit seeking to eliminate the only majority-Black judicial district in DeSoto County, Mississippi. Black people make up about 36% of the county’s population, and that percentage has grown significantly in recent decades. The above civil rights groups are seeking to intervene in the case to defend the lone, Black-majority judicial subdistrict. The district provides the only meaningful opportunity for Black voters to elect candidates of their choice in Desoto County, which has a longstanding pattern of racially polarized voting. On July 2, white voters in the county filed this lawsuit and asked the court to strike down the majority-Black judicial subdistrict, mere weeks before mail-in voting begins. The plaintiffs claim that the electoral scheme is unconstitutional, but the intervening civil rights groups maintain that the plaintiffs are distorting the scope of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Louisiana v. Callais. In Callais, the Supreme Court confirmed that the use of race to draw Black-majority districts remains constitutional when required by Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Almost all judgeships in DeSoto County are elected countywide, effectively giving Black voters no opportunity to elect their preferred candidates. Dismantling the subdistrict would shut out the Black residents of DeSoto County – the county with the highest rate of growth in its Black population in the State of Mississippi – from representation on the circuit and chancery courts. "This lawsuit would erase Black voters’ ability to be heard in judicial elections in DeSoto County," said Ming Cheung, senior staff attorney with the ACLU's Voting Rights Project. "We are intervening to ensure that all residents of DeSoto County can fairly participate in elections." “Black voters in DeSoto County make up over one-third of the County’s population. We are seeking to ensure all voters have the ability to elect candidates of their choice in DeSoto County,” said Joshua Tom, Legal Director at the ACLU of Mississippi. “Black voters in DeSoto county have endured decades of racial discrimination in voting, but this sole majority-Black subdistrict provides them with a fair opportunity to make their voices heard in judicial elections,” said Sara Rohani, assistant counsel at the Legal Defense Fund. “To strike the district down would be a disservice to the promise of the Voting Rights Act. The intervenors in this case implore the court to uphold the voting rights of DeSoto residents that are protected by federal law.” “This lawsuit is a direct attempt to dilute Black political power and reverse decades of hard-fought civil rights progress in Mississippi,” said Anthony P. Ashton, Senior Associate General Counsel at the NAACP. “Majority-Black judicial districts ensure that marginalized communities have a seat at the table in our legal system. We will not stand by while representation of DeSoto County’s Black residents is under attack.” Read the intervention brief and proposed response to motion for preliminary injunction.