Judge Declines to Block Presidential Election Integrity Executive Order

U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, photo credit: Law.com

By Patrice JohnsonChair and Co-Founder, Michigan Fair Elections Institute (MFEI)

June 10, 2026

On May 28, 2026, U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols declined to issue a preliminary injunction against Presidential Executive Order 14399, Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections. Much of the media coverage that followed framed the ruling as either a victory for the Administration or a procedural setback for its opponents. In reality, the court decided neither question.

Judge Nichols did not rule on whether Executive Order 14399 is constitutional. Nor did he determine whether the federal government possesses authority to implement all its provisions. The court’s decision in DSCC v. Trump concluded only that the plaintiffs had not yet demonstrated the concrete, present injury required to justify the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction — because the actions they sought to stop had not yet substantially occurred. The underlying litigation continues.

That distinction matters, because much of the national coverage has focused on what opponents fear the order may eventually do, rather than what the court actually decided.

What the Executive Order May Do

At its core, Executive Order 14399 addresses a straightforward question. How can election officials better ensure that ballots are issued only to eligible voters?

The order directs federal agencies to compile citizenship information from existing databases and share it with states for eligibility verification. It also directs the U.S. Postal Service to develop procedures for handling and tracking absentee ballots transmitted by mail.

Neither the objective nor the underlying legal framework is novel. Federal law already prohibits noncitizens from voting in elections for President, Vice President, U.S. Senator, or U.S. Representative. Plus, U.S. law establishes criminal penalties for violations:

• 18 U.S.C. § 611 makes unlawful an alien to vote in elections for President, Vice President, United States Senator, or United States Representative.

• 52 U.S.C. § 20511 establishes criminal penalties for election-related fraud, including knowingly submitting false voter-registration information or fraudulently registering or voting in federal elections.

 Michigan’s Constitution, as amended by Proposal 2 of 2022, likewise limits voting to qualified U.S. citizen electors.

Rachelle Smit, Michigan State Representative, 43rd District; Speaker Pro Tempore; Chair, House Election Integrity Committee, told MFEI:

"Every state that expands convenient ballot access — as Michigan has — takes on a corresponding obligation to ensure that access is limited to eligible voters. Same-day registration and no-excuse absentee voting are now part of Michigan law. Accurate, real-time citizenship verification is not an obstacle to that system — it is what makes that system trustworthy."

The legal dispute is not whether noncitizens may vote in federal elections. That question is settled. The dispute is whether the U.S. Executive Branch may employ the particular verification and enforcement mechanisms contained in this order. That question remains before the courts.

The USPS Controversy

The order’s most contested provision involves the United States Postal Service. Critics, including the American Postal Workers Union and Democratic members of the Senate Commerce Committee, argue that USPS lacks authority to function as an elections gatekeeper and that election administration is primarily a state responsibility. Democracy Docket reported on June 6 that postal workers have pushed back against the new procedures that are now going into place.

Supporters respond that the federal government unquestionably possesses authority to regulate the use of federal mail systems, and that absentee ballots already travel through a federally operated postal network subject to federal mail-fraud statutes. On this view, the order doesn’t create new federal authority over elections, it is applying existing authority over federal agency, the United States Postal Service.

The courts will decide whether the Administration has exceeded its authority. What is not accurate is to portray the new USPS provisions as an effort to suppress voting. The order would create a more auditable absentee-ballot process. Reasonable people may debate whether that is wise policy, but to call it vote suppression would require evidence the critics have not yet provided, so it falls in the category of spin-doctoring.

Why Michigan's Experience Is Relevant

The media coverage surrounding Executive Order 14399 often treats eligibility-verification concerns as hypothetical. Michigan’s recent experience suggests otherwise.

In 2024, University of Michigan student Haoxiang Gao, a Chinese national, reportedly cast a ballot despite being legally ineligible. According to public reports and court filings, the ballot was accepted, tabulated, and could not be retrieved after Gao self-reported his ineligibility. Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson acknowledged on April 15, 2025, that at least 15 noncitizens voted in the November 2024 election. Macomb County Clerk Anthony Forlini, currently a candidate for Secretary of State, announced on January 12, 2026, additional evidence of noncitizens appearing in both voter rolls and jury pools.

These instances are documented, not speculative. They illustrate a specific vulnerability in systems that rely heavily on self-attestation at registration.

Michigan State Representative Jay DeBoyer, (R- 63rd District) who serves as the state's House Oversight Committee Chair, put it this way:

"Michigan has already documented instances of ineligible voters casting ballots that were counted and could not be retrieved. That is not a hypothetical. It happened. The question Judge Nichols left open is a legal one about federal authority. The policy question has already been answered by experience. Our current eligibility verification system has gaps that need to be closed."

Michigan’s post-2022 election framework — which now includes same-day voter registration through Election Day and no-excuse absentee voting under Article II, Section 4 — increases both voter convenience and reliance on accurate, real-time eligibility verification. That tradeoff is worth examining honestly.

The Proper Debate

A recurring theme in coverage of Executive Order 14399 is the tendency to treat one side’s concerns as legitimate and the other’s as pretextual. Critics’ concerns about database errors deserve serious consideration. But those concerns do not resolve the underlying question — they reframe it. Voter registration databases are themselves imperfect. The relevant policy question is which system produces fewer errors while preserving lawful ballot access.

Americans across the political spectrum broadly agree that only eligible citizens should vote in federal elections. The debate is how best to achieve that goal without burdening lawful voters. That debate deserves more analytical rigor than most coverage has provided.

Judge Nichols’ ruling does not resolve it. It means only that the challengers must demonstrate concrete injury before a federal court will intervene — and that, for now, they have not done so.