A US judge temporarily blocked parts of President
A preliminary injunction sought by the
The judge declined to block other provisions, including Trump’s threat to strip states of some funding if they fail to cooperate. The ruling also clears, for now, a requirement that US agencies grant
The decision is the latest court setback this week for Trump’s executive orders seeking to reshape the US government and expand presidential authority. Earlier on Thursday, a judge
US District Judge
In an emailed statement, White House spokesman Harrison Fields said, “President Trump will keep fighting for election integrity, despite Democrat objections that reveal their disdain for commonsense safeguards like verifying citizenship. Free and fair elections are the bedrock of our Constitutional Republic, and we’re confident in securing an ultimate victory in the courtroom.”
Disqualifying Millions
According to the plaintiffs challenging Trump’s order, a proof-of-citizenship requirement could disqualify millions of people from casting ballots because they don’t have the correct documents, or their records were stolen or destroyed. Only about half of all Americans have US passports, the suit says.
A group of Democrat-led US states filed a
Kollar-Kotelly said her ruling was warranted because the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their proof-of-citizenship claims. The claims she allowed to moved forward may be better suited to the lawsuit by the Democratic state attorneys general, she said.
The judge said Democrats in particular face “an especially acute threat” from the proof-of-citizenship rule due to the upcoming June deadline to register to vote in Arizona’s special congressional election.
“And because each day presents an opportunity to recruit candidates, persuade voters, and galvanize supporters that cannot be restored once lost, the implementation of a documentary-proof-of-citizenship requirement” in response to Trump’s executive order “would irreparably harm the Democratic Party plaintiffs’ interests throughout the country.”
Lawyers for the plaintiffs praised the ruling, saying the Constitution “couldn’t be clearer” that the states run elections, not the president.
“Today’s ruling is a victory for democracy and the rule of law over presidential overreach,” said Elias Law Group attorney Aria Branch. “This injunction stops an outrageous attempt to disenfranchise eligible voters by adding illegal and unnecessary barriers to the voter registration process.”
The case is Democratic National Committee v. Trump,
(Updates with comments from the White House and a lawyer for Democrats.)
To contact the reporter on this story:
To contact the editors responsible for this story:
Steve Stroth, Elizabeth Wasserman
© 2025 Bloomberg L.P. All rights reserved. Used with permission.
Learn more about Bloomberg Law or Log In to keep reading:
Learn About Bloomberg Law
AI-powered legal analytics, workflow tools and premium legal & business news.
Already a subscriber?
Log in to keep reading or access research tools.