A federal judge has dealt a decisive, permanent blow to one of President Trump's signature attempts to overhaul US elections. On Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Denise Casper permanently barred the administration from implementing its proof-of-citizenship voter registration mandate, ruling that the president simply lacks constitutional authority to oversee how elections are run.
What the Ruling Actually Does
The ruling effectively converts a preliminary injunction Judge Casper issued a year ago — which had temporarily blocked many of Trump's efforts to overhaul elections — into a permanent ban. Among the proposed changes, Trump's order would have required people to provide documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote, prevented mail ballots from being counted if they arrived after Election Day even when postmarked on time, and punished states that failed to comply by withholding certain federal funding.
The legal reasoning behind the decision centers on the Constitution's separation of powers. "While the Constitution vests the President with 'executive Power' and commands him to 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,' it does not grant the President any specific powers over elections," Judge Casper wrote. She added that as a result, "the President 'plays no direct role in the process of appointing electors,' nor does he have authority to control the state officials who do,'" citing the Constitution's Elections Clause, which grants states the primary authority to decide how electors are chosen.
How the Case Got Here
This ruling caps a lengthy legal battle that began shortly after Trump signed the order. The decision is more than a year in the making, with a group of state attorneys general filing a lawsuit in Boston last April to block Trump's first executive order on voting. Attorneys general from 19 states — including California, Nevada, Massachusetts, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin — had filed the lawsuit.
The administration tried to argue the case was premature since the rules hadn't yet taken effect, but the court wasn't persuaded. Casper rejected the administration's argument that the lawsuit was premature because the rules had yet to be put in place, instead agreeing that the Constitution gives states and Congress the authority to regulate elections, and that Trump's requirements violated the separation of powers.
State Officials Celebrate the Decision
Democratic attorneys general who brought the case quickly hailed the ruling as a major victory for voting rights. New York Attorney General Letitia James said she was grateful the court had blocked Trump's "unconstitutional attempt to seize control of our elections" and would continue to defend voting rights in this year's midterm elections, adding, "Generations of Americans fought tirelessly for the right to vote, and we honor their legacy by protecting that right against anyone who tries to undermine it". California Attorney General Rob Bonta, whose state served as the lead plaintiff, said the ruling reaffirmed that the power to regulate elections is reserved to the states and Congress, though he cautioned, "we are clear-eyed that President Trump's attacks on voting rights and our elections show no signs of slowing down".
One of Several Setbacks for Trump's Election Agenda
This isn't the only legal defeat the administration has faced on this front recently. The ruling is the latest setback in the Trump administration's attempt to reshape federal elections, with courts blocking multiple efforts to impose federal oversight on elections; multiple lawsuits are challenging Trump's second executive order on voting, which attempted to create a national database of approved voters, and earlier this week, a judge blocked an attempt to use an immigration database to check voter rolls. Casper's ruling also follows a Monday order from a federal judge that struck down Trump's March directive to create a database containing voters' Social Security numbers, citizenship status, and other sensitive data.
Trump's Pivot to Legislation
With the executive order route now permanently closed, the administration appears to be shifting its strategy toward Congress. In an apparent nod to the difficulty of implementing a proof-of-citizenship requirement by executive order, Trump is pushing legislation in the Republican-controlled Congress to create such a mandate. The SAVE America Act has passed the House but has stalled in the Senate, leading Trump to advocate for eliminating the filibuster blocking the legislation. On Wednesday, he abruptly canceled the expected signing of a bipartisan housing bill, saying he won't sign legislation until Congress passes his proof-of-citizenship requirement for voting.
Notably, the underlying premise behind the order remains heavily disputed. The president and many of his Republican allies have promoted the narrative that voting by noncitizens is a major problem, when in fact it's quite rare. The federal voter registration form already requires people to attest that they are U.S. citizens, and violating that is punishable as a felony that can lead to prison or deportation.
For ongoing, authoritative coverage of federal voting rights litigation and election law developments, the Brennan Center for Justice remains a leading nonpartisan resource for tracking these cases as they unfold.
What Comes Next
With this executive order now permanently blocked and a second elections directive still facing multiple legal challenges, the administration's push to impose federal proof-of-citizenship requirements appears increasingly likely to hinge on whether the SAVE America Act can clear the Senate. Separately, the US Supreme Court is due to issue an opinion soon on whether mail ballots must arrive by Election Day, a ruling that could immediately change the rules in 14 states that currently allow grace periods ranging from days to weeks if ballots are postmarked by Election Day — meaning the broader fight over voting rules is far from settled even with this ruling.