A federal judge has blocked key provisions of President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at overhauling federal election procedures, siding with a group of Democratic attorneys general who argued the directive overstepped presidential authority.
The ruling, issued Friday by U.S. District Judge Denise J. Casper, halts enforcement of the March 25 order that sought to require proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections and to invalidate all mail-in ballots received after Election Day, regardless of postmark.
Judge Casper wrote that the Constitution grants states — not the president — the power to regulate elections, noting that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in proving the order unconstitutional.
“The Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections,” Casper stated in her ruling.
The order also included a provision tying federal election grant funding to whether states complied with the new deadlines and documentation requirements.
Judge blocks key parts of Trump election order
Attorneys general from multiple states, including California and New York, challenged the executive order, stating it would force states to significantly revise their election procedures, incur additional costs, and potentially disenfranchise eligible voters.
In the complaint, the coalition of attorneys general said the directive “usurps the States’ constitutional power and seeks to amend election law by fiat.”
Judge Casper agreed, highlighting that while citizenship is a requirement to vote in federal elections, the federal voter registration form already includes a citizenship attestation. She also emphasized that the changes proposed would impose a heavy administrative burden on states without proper authority from Congress.
The ruling follows a similar decision from a federal judge in Washington, D.C., who previously blocked parts of the same executive order, including the proof-of-citizenship requirement.
Election deadlines and ballot access
The order’s requirement to reject ballots arriving after Election Day would have impacted 18 states and Puerto Rico, which currently allow such ballots to be counted as long as they are postmarked on or before Election Day, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
In a related legal filing, the state of Washington reported that more than 300,000 ballots in the 2024 election arrived after Election Day, which would have been invalidated under the executive order.
White House and DOJ response
The White House had previously defended the order, describing it as a measure to promote “free, fair, and honest elections.” A spokesperson argued that requiring proof of citizenship is a “commonsense” safeguard.
During a court hearing, Department of Justice attorney Bridget O’Hickey claimed the order sought to create uniform standards for election procedures and disputed that the requirements would cause undue harm to the states.
