The court, aside from denying the federal government’s motion to dismiss the multistate lawsuit, also extended the timeline of the injunction. Bonta’s office has since cast the decision as yet another win for his office, which has challenged many of the Trump administration’s unprecedented attacks on states rights.
A multistate coalition of attorneys general has secured a preliminary injunction against a March 25 executive order imposing more stringent citizenship-verification requirements on states and voters.
The lawsuit, filed in April by California Attorney General Rob Bonta and supported by at least 18 other attorneys general, charges that the executive order’s provisions are an “unconstitutional, antidemocratic, and un-American attempt to impose sweeping voting restrictions.”
The executive order stipulates, among other things, that voters provide “documentary proof of citizenship” to complete voter registration. It also directs states to summarily reject mail-in ballots received after Election Day, even if they were cast and mailed days before the deadline.
“Elections don’t just happen overnight—States must devote significant resources and countless hours of preparation to make them happen,” Bonta said in an April press release announcing the lawsuit. “The Executive Order threatens to disrupt that process, to the detriment of California and its voters, so we are asking the court to halt its implementation.”
In June, Bonta and his co-plaintiffs secured a preliminary injunction against the “unlawful provisions” of the Executive Order. On September 17, the preliminary injunction was upheld and extended.
The court’s decision notes that, in its defense, the Trump administration argued that the U.S. Attorney General has yet to take any enforcement action with respect to the executive order, with Justice Department attorneys arguing that the lawsuit is “based on an unsupported ‘presumption of bad-faith execution by the Government’ that is speculative and thus fails to establish both standing and ripeness.”
The court disagreed, finding instead that “pre-enforcement review of a threatened government action is appropriate if the government’s threat of enforcement is ‘sufficiently imminent.’”
“The Ballot Receipt States …. have plausibly alleged that the new deadline for tabulating votes under the Executive Order conflicts with their state laws that ‘allow time for the tabulation of timely cast ballots received or cured after Election Day,’” thereby exposing the defendant states to “substantial risk … of impending enforcement.”
The court, aside from denying the federal government’s motion to dismiss the multistate lawsuit, also extended the timeline of the injunction. Bonta’s office has since cast the decision as yet another win for his office, which has aggressively challenged many of the administration’s unprecedented assaults on states rights.
“I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Donald Trump is not a king. He cannot unilaterally impose voting restrictions across the country—that’s why my fellow attorneys general and I took him to court earlier this year,” Bonta said. “I’m pleased that the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has now emphatically rejected the Trump administration’s effort to dismiss our lawsuit. We continue to believe in the strength of our case and remain as committed as ever to protecting the right to vote.”
Join the conversation!