Trump v. California · ¶55
On June 25, 2026, the District Court granted the Plaintiff States’ motion for summary judgment and issued a permanent injunction, narrowly barring implementation of §§2 and 3 only as to the Plaintiff States and only for the 2026 election cycle. ＿＿＿ F. Supp. 3d ＿＿＿, ＿＿＿ (Mass. 2026), App. to Application for Stay 28a–64a (App.). The District Court found that election officials in the Plaintiff States faced actual and imminent harm because, even in advance of any final rule, their “statutory obligations” to train local election officials, create new legal-guidance documents, and communicate with voters required immediate action in response to the Executive Order. Id., at 42a. The District Court also concluded that the President lacked legal authority to implement §§2 and 3, and that his mandate impermissibly interfered with the Plaintiff States’ constitutionally assigned duty to administer…Read in context ›
slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.