A federal judge has blocked Donald Trump’s sweeping executive order on voting laws, warning it violates constitutional limits and undermines state election authority.
At a Glance
- A federal judge ruled against Trump’s order requiring proof of citizenship to vote
- The order also attempted to ban counting mail-in ballots received after Election Day
- The court found the order exceeded presidential authority under the Constitution
- Nineteen Democratic-led states challenged the legality of the executive action
- The ruling reaffirms states’ rights over federal election procedures
Presidential Power Checked in Court
In a sharp legal rebuke, U.S. District Judge Denise J. Casper on Thursday issued a preliminary injunction halting key provisions of former President Donald Trump’s March 25 executive order, which aimed to reshape federal election processes. The blocked measures included a requirement for documentary proof of citizenship to register and a prohibition on counting any mail-in ballots received after Election Day, even if postmarked on time.
The ruling concludes that the president lacks unilateral authority to dictate voting requirements or deadlines for federal elections. According to Judge Casper, those powers reside with Congress and the states—a principle enshrined in the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Her decision emphasized that federal law already mandates voters affirm their citizenship under penalty of perjury and that requiring additional documents would be an undue burden on both voters and state agencies.
The executive order, critics argued, was a transparent attempt to suppress votes under the guise of election integrity. Proponents claimed it was necessary to combat alleged non-citizen voting, though studies show such fraud is vanishingly rare.
Watch a report: Judge Blocks Trump’s Federal Voter Rules.
States Push Back on Federal Overreach
The lawsuit, brought by a coalition of 19 Democratic-led states and joined by various voting-rights groups, argued that Trump’s order represented an unconstitutional seizure of state authority. The judge agreed, ruling that the federal executive branch cannot impose voter ID requirements or ballot-counting timelines not authorized by Congress.
Additionally, the injunction preserves the practice—used in at least 18 states and Puerto Rico—of accepting ballots postmarked by Election Day but received afterward. Trump’s order would have invalidated thousands of such ballots, potentially disenfranchising voters whose mail was delayed through no fault of their own.
This is not the first judicial blow to Trump’s efforts to centralize election control. Earlier this year, a federal court in Washington, D.C., blocked other aspects of the same executive order, citing similar overreach concerns.
The Road Ahead
While Thursday’s ruling halts enforcement of the most controversial elements of the order, other parts remain under review, including provisions threatening to cut federal funding to states that don’t comply. Appeals are expected, and the ultimate fate of the executive order may rest with higher courts.
For now, the decision marks a major affirmation of decentralized election authority and voter access protections. As India Times explains, the ruling may set a national precedent against executive interference in electoral processes.
Trump’s order, critics say, attempted to rewrite voting rules without the legislative backing necessary in a constitutional democracy. The judiciary’s response has been unequivocal: not so fast.
