Trump Administration Barred From Implementing Election Order (1)

Nineteen states convinced a federal judge on Friday to block the Trump administration from implementing provisions of an executive order requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote and banning counting valid mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day.

The states challenging the executive order are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims that its provisions are unconstitutional, Judge Denise J. Casper of the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts said, granting the states’ request for a preliminary injunction.

“Congress, not the President, has the ultimate constitutional authority over elections,” Casper wrote. And instructing agencies to add a documentary proof of citizenship requirement on federal voter registration forms “conflicts with the will of Congress,” she added.

President Donald Trump‘s March executive order also mandates that voter registration agencies assess citizenship prior to providing federal voter registration forms to public assistance program enrollees, and prohibits states from counting ballots postmarked by but received after Election Day. States that don’t comply with the order would face potential investigations from the US Department of Justice and the loss of federal funding.

California, New York, Arizona, and a host of other states sued in April.

The executive order will require states to “immediately update their voter registration processes and databases, issue new guidance, conduct trainings,” and fund public education campaigns to counter confusion about the changes, Casper said. Those steps, in addition to the threat of enforcement for noncompliance, pose imminent irreparable injuries, the judge said.

Neither the Constitution nor federal voting rights statutes require proof of citizenship or give the president the authority to tell the Election Assistance Commission to change the federal voter registration form, Casper said.

Although the Vesting Clause provides the president “some supervisory authority over subordinate executive officials, that authority is not absolute,” and restricts actions that unduly interfere with the functioning of the executive branch. The executive order’s directives to the EAC, “a bipartisan and independent entity, is such an undue interference,” Casper said.

Adding the proof of citizenship requirement for members of the military and US citizens abroad also “appears to be contrary to the will of Congress,” as the Uniform Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act “‘unequivocally committed to eliminating procedural roadblocks,’” the court said.

The president also lacks authority to conscript states to “carry out his Executive Order mandates,” Casper said.

Federal Election Day statutes don’t bar states from counting ballots received in compliance with their own ballot receipt laws, she said, enjoining the US attorney general from taking any enforcement actions against the plaintiff states over that provision.

The requirement also would impose an “extra-statutory condition on the disbursement of congressionally authorized funds” because federal law doesn’t allow the EAC to condition state funding on their ballot receipt deadline, the court said.

The case is State of Calif. v. Trump, D. Mass., No. 1:25-cv-10810, 6/13/25.