Trump Must Face State-Led Challenge to Elections Executive Order

Federal officials failed to escape a lawsuit brought by Democrat-led states challenging provisions of President Donald Trump’s executive order on elections, including his directive to require proof of citizenship to register to vote.

The 19 states suing over the president’s order plausibly alleged concrete injuries—including the potential loss of millions of dollars in federal funding—to pursue their claims, Chief Judge Denise J. Casper of the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts wrote in a Wednesday order denying the administration’s bid to toss the suit.

Trump’s March executive order directs the Election Assistance Commission to “take appropriate action” to require proof of citizenship in national mail voter registration applications, and mandates the defense secretary to update voter applications for servicemembers and other US citizens overseas to require the same. It also requires the attorney general to take action against states that allow the counting of mail-in ballots postmarked on or before Election Day but received afterward. States that don’t comply with Trump’s order could face federal investigations and the loss of funding.

The states sued Trump and other administration officials in April, alleging the order violates the US Constitution and states’ authority to manage elections. Washington and Oregon also challenged the order, along with the Democratic National Committee and a slew of nonprofits in separate lawsuits.

Casper granted a preliminary injunction in June barring the administration from implementing the challenged provisions of Trump’s directive, finding they’re likely unconstitutional.

The government argued the states lack standing to challenge the executive order, and asserted Trump’s directives comply with legal requirements.

But the states have alleged an injury to pursue their claims, Casper said, adding that the court also already concluded the states are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims.

The states alleged the executive order will require them to implement infrastructure and policies to comply with the new requirements, “all of which would result in ‘enormous time and resources.’” The potential loss of millions of dollars in federal funding is also “an imminently threatened economic injury” sufficient to confer standing, Casper wrote.

The states also plausibly alleged Trump’s directives are unlawful because he lacks the authority to dictate changes to the federal voter registration form, but the executive order purports to mandate the EAC to amend the federal voter registration form and “precisely dictates what should be included,” Casper wrote.

The ballot receipt requirement also likely conflicts with the plaintiff states’ laws and isn’t reflective of the plain text of federal election laws, which don’t appear to authorize Trump’s directive to the attorney general to take enforcement action against states. Federal law also doesn’t allow the EAC to condition funding to states based on their ballot receipt deadlines or accepting the proof of citizenship requirement, and the president has no authority to direct agencies to assess citizenship before providing the federal form to enrollees of public aid programs, the judge said.

The states’ attorney general’s offices represent the plaintiffs.

The case is State of Calif. v. Trump, D. Mass., No. 1:25-cv-10810, 9/17/25.