A group of states and the District of Columbia challenged a presidential executive order directing Homeland Security to compile state citizenship lists, the Attorney General to prioritize prosecuting officials who give ballots to ineligible voters, and the Postal Service to propose rules for mail ballots such as tracking barcodes. A federal district court in Massachusetts enjoined those provisions as to the plaintiff states for the 2026 midterms, and the First Circuit refused to stay that ruling. In an unsigned per curiam decision, the Supreme Court held that the Government was likely to succeed in showing that the states lacked standing and their claims were unripe, and it stayed the injunction pending appeal and any certiorari petition. The Court reasoned that each provision is an internal directive imposing no obligation on the states, so any injury depended on a speculative chain of future agency choices, that planning costs incurred in response to such speculative threats cannot create standing, and that nothing in the order made it a crime not to use the lists. It found that the injunction irreparably intruded on Executive Branch operations and that the equities favored a stay, while stressing that its ruling does not mean any later implementation will be lawful. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Kagan, dissented, arguing that the order read as a whole and the Government’s own statements created a credible threat of prosecution, and Justice Jackson dissented separately, warning that the ruling injects chaos into the midterms and tells election plaintiffs their claims can come too early as well as too late.