This week’s federal policy round-up covers consequential developments across voting rights, immigration, civil liberties, and federal data policy, as courts continue to push back on executive actions and communities navigate a rapidly shifting legal landscape. We are sending this week’s newsletter today in observance of Good Friday tomorrow.
Executive Order Attempts to Expand Federal Control Over Voter Eligibility and Restrict Mail Voting
An executive order signed by President Donald Trump on March 31 directs federal agencies to require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship for voter registration using federal forms, even though federal law already prohibits noncitizens from voting. The order also directs federal agencies to compile a national “citizenship list” using existing government records and share it with states to determine eligible voters. It further seeks to restrict mail-in voting by directing the U.S. Postal Service to send mail-in and absentee ballots only to individuals on that list and by prioritizing enforcement against officials who provide ballots to ineligible voters. Lastly, the order also ties certain federal election funding to whether states adopt these measures.
The order is likely to face legal challenges because the U.S. Constitution gives states primary authority over elections unless Congress intervenes. Courts have previously blocked a similar effort through an executive order. A federal citizenship database would likely be incomplete and error-prone, increasing the risk that eligible voters are denied registration or ballots. Similar state voter purge attempts have mainly impacted naturalized citizens, low-income voters, seniors, and individuals with limited access to documentation. And similar mail-in voting restrictions have disproportionately impacted rural voters, military members, and voters with disabilities. The measures may also reinforce inaccurate claims about disproven voter fraud while creating new barriers that increase the risk of voter disenfranchisement.
OMB Delays Implementation of Updated Federal Race and Ethnicity Data Standards
On March 27, 2026, the Office of Management and Budget announced a one-year extension for federal agencies to submit Action Plans under Statistical Policy Directive No. 15, pushing the deadline to March 28, 2027. These Action Plans on race and ethnicity data are mandatory roadmaps that each federal agency must create to show exactly how they will align their data collection with new SPD 15 standards. The deadline had previously been extended from September 28, 2025 to March 28, 2026. The updated directive, finalized in 2024, requires agencies to revise how they collect and report race and ethnicity data, including adding a Middle Eastern or North African category and combining race and ethnicity questions. The latest delay comes as the administration reviews the 2024 revisions and how new categories were adopted.
The delay slows implementation across agencies and creates uncertainty about whether key changes, including the Middle Eastern or North African category, will be fully implemented or modified. This may prolong gaps in federal data collection for communities that have historically been undercounted, limiting visibility in areas such as public health, funding, and civil rights enforcement. It may also disrupt agency timelines for aligning data systems ahead of the 2030 Census, signaling a potential shift in federal data policy priorities.
Birthright Citizenship Remains in Place as Supreme Court Hears Arguments
The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on Wednesday on an executive order issued by President Trump that seeks to limit birthright citizenship, but the longstanding rule granting citizenship to nearly all people born in the United States remains unchanged. The 14th Amendment, adopted after the Civil War, established birthright citizenship to ensure that the government could not deny personhood or legal status to people born in the country as it had done for enslaved African Americans. For more than a century, this has been understood to guarantee citizenship regardless of a child’s parents’ immigration status.
However, the executive order attempts to deny citizenship to certain U.S.-born children based on their parents’ immigration status, including when a father is not a citizen or lawful permanent resident and the mother is either undocumented or in the country on a temporary visa. Multiple federal courts have blocked the order, finding that it conflicts with the Constitution’s text and longstanding legal precedent, which do not give the president authority to redefine who is entitled to citizenship at birth. Those rulings remain in effect while the case proceeds, meaning birthright citizenship continues to apply nationwide. While it is impossible to predict with absolute certainty how the Supreme Court will rule until it issues a decision expected this summer, it is very likely the executive order will be struck down.
Administration Partially Resumes Asylum Processing While Maintaining Nationality-Based Restrictions
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced on March 30 that it will resume processing some asylum and other adjustment applications after a broad pause halted hundreds of thousands of cases. The pause, implemented in late 2025 following a fatal incident involving an asylum recipient, had suspended asylum adjudications handled by USCIS. Processing will now move forward for applicants from countries not designated as “high-risk.”
While some applicants may see progress, applications from nationals of 40 countries subject to prior travel restrictions, along with related immigration benefits such as work permits and green cards, remain on hold. The continued freeze creates unequal access to asylum processing based on nationality and raises legal and civil rights concerns. So-called “expanded vetting” measures may also slow processing and increase administrative burdens. The shift reflects a limited adjustment rather than a broader policy change, with restrictions continuing to shape access to asylum and other immigration pathways.
Court Orders Restoration of Legal Status for Migrants Admitted Through CBP One System
A federal trial court ruled on Wednesday that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) unlawfully terminated the legal status of migrants who were granted entry after scheduling appointments at ports of entry through the CBP One app. The ruling blocks a 2025 policy that ordered more than 900,000 individuals to leave the country. The court found the government failed to follow required legal procedures by ending parole on a blanket basis without individualized review.
Barring a successful appeal, the decision restores temporary legal status and work authorization for affected migrants who remain in the United States, including many from Venezuela, Cuba, and Haiti, and allows them to stay in the country while their cases are reconsidered. It reinforces limits on broad, system-wide immigration actions that bypass individualized determinations, though ongoing cases continue to create uncertainty for migrants navigating shifting policies.
Federal Judge Upholds Minnesota Law Allowing In-State Tuition for Undocumented Students
On March 27, a federal district court dismissed a Department of Justice lawsuit challenging Minnesota’s policy granting in-state tuition and scholarships to certain undocumented students. Ruling in Minnesota’s favor, the court found the Federal Government failed to show the policy discriminates against U.S. citizens, noting that eligibility is based on attending a Minnesota high school for three years regardless of immigration status. The court found that federal officials also lacked standing to sue state officials because they do not control tuition-setting laws.
At the center of the lawsuit was an argument that Minnesota’s policy violated federal law by offering benefits to undocumented students not equally available to some out-of-state U.S. citizens. Minnesota may now continue offering in-state tuition and financial aid to undocumented students, preserving access to more affordable higher education. Similar federal challenges are underway in Texas and Kentucky, creating a fragmented legal landscape in which access to tuition benefits varies depending on state laws and court outcomes. These ongoing disputes reflect wider tensions between federal immigration enforcement priorities and state-level education policies.
Supreme Court Ruling Limits State Authority to Regulate Licensed Counseling
On March 31, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8–1 that a Colorado law prohibiting licensed therapists from providing conversion therapy to minors likely violates the First Amendment. It found the law impermissibly restricts speech based on viewpoint. The Court reversed a lower court decision that upheld the law and sent the case back for further review under a stricter constitutional standard. The law, enacted in 2019, barred efforts to change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity and allowed penalties including fines and license suspension, though it had not been enforced.
The decision limits states’ ability to regulate licensed professionals when services involve speech, such as advice physicians give to patients, raising broader implications for oversight of healthcare and other fields where standards of care have traditionally been enforced through licensing. This shift may make it more difficult for states to restrict practices they consider harmful. The ruling also undermines bans on conversion therapy in more than 20 states, increasing the likelihood that LGBTQ youth may be exposed to a practice widely rejected by major medical organizations as harmful.
Administration Redirects DHS Funds to Pay TSA Workers During Partial Shutdown
A March 27 presidential memorandum directed federal agencies to reallocate existing DHS funds to pay Transportation Security Administration (TSA) workers during an ongoing partial shutdown. The administration described missed pay as a national security emergency, and TSA employees received retroactive pay after weeks of missed paychecks that contributed to staffing shortages and long airport security lines. The specific funding source has not been publicly identified, though it may draw on flexible DHS accounts.
After the House failed to act today on the latest Senate DHS funding bill, the underlying funding impasse remains unresolved. The memorandum raises separation-of-powers concerns because it does not cite clear statutory authority for shifting funds, which typically requires congressional approval. The lack of transparency around the funding source, along with questions about why this authority was not used earlier, may increase the risk of future disputes over executive control of federal spending and set a precedent for similar actions during funding gaps.