LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS v. EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
1:25-cv-00946
D.D.C.Apr 3, 2025Background
- Three cases were filed challenging President Donald J. Trump’s Executive Order titled “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections,” all in March 2025.
- The plaintiffs in each case include major organizations concerned with voting rights and election integrity: League of United Latin American Citizens, Democratic National Committee, and League of Women Voters Education Fund.
- All cases make similar legal challenges to the Executive Order, including constitutional arguments and alleged violation of statutory requirements for voter registration processes.
- Each case involves some of the same defendants, particularly federal agencies and their officials, including the U.S. Election Assistance Commission and its commissioners.
- All parties agreed consolidation was appropriate if they retained the right to file separate pleadings, motions, and briefs, as needed.
- The cases are at the same early procedural stage, and the court finds "extensive common questions of law and fact."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to consolidate the three cases | All cases share issues and defendants; consolidation would promote efficiency and consistency | Agrees, provided right to file separately retained | Motion to consolidate granted |
| Whether consolidation would cause prejudice or confusion | Consolidation won't merge cases nor prejudice rights due to clear procedures | Concern about procedural rights maintained in consolidation | Proper procedures set to prevent prejudice |
| Whether consolidation serves interests of justice & court | Shared facts/law and timing make consolidation efficient and equitable | No significant opposition if procedural protections in place | Consolidation serves justice and efficiency |
| Impact on rights and claims of the parties | Substantive rights and claims must be preserved; opposition to merger of suits | No merger, only ministerial consolidation | Rights/claims not altered by consolidation |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 289 U.S. 479 (Consolidation does not merge suits or alter parties' rights)
- Devlin v. Transp. Commc'ns Int'l Union, 175 F.3d 121 (Consolidation appropriate if it achieves efficiency without injustice)
- Nat'l Ass'n of Mortg. Brokers v. Bd. of Governors of Fed. Rsrv. Sys., 770 F. Supp. 2d 283 (Consolidation justified by common law/fact and procedural posture)
- Stewart v. O'Neill, 225 F. Supp. 2d 16 (Consolidation not warranted when cases are in different procedural postures)