Poli Alert Politics & Civics
Related Articles
A federal judge in Massachusetts has blocked key portions of former President Donald Trump’s executive order that would have imposed new proof-of-citizenship requirements for voter registration in federal elections.
U.S. District Judge Denise Casper issued the ruling Friday, granting a preliminary injunction sought by attorneys general from 19 states who challenged the order shortly after its issuance in March. The judge found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their case, asserting that Trump’s order exceeded presidential authority and conflicted with federal law.
“The president’s power is at its lowest ebb when it conflicts with the will of Congress,” Casper wrote in her 47-page opinion.
Five Provisions Struck Down
The injunction blocks five provisions of Trump’s order, including:
-
A mandate directing the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to require documentary proof of citizenship for the national voter registration form.
-
A requirement for states to record and track documentation presented by voters as evidence of citizenship.
-
A directive to the Secretary of Defense to update absentee voting forms for military and overseas voters to require citizenship proof.
-
A provision ordering federal agencies handling voter registration, such as those offering public assistance, to verify citizenship before issuing registration forms.
-
A clause instructing the Attorney General to take legal action against states accepting mail-in ballots post–Election Day.
Casper found that these changes would impose significant burdens on states and could have a chilling effect on voter participation—a result contrary to the intention of federal voting laws such as the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act.
“The executive order’s mandates amount to undue interference in an area where the president lacks constitutional authority,” Casper wrote.
Legal and Political Context
The Trump administration had issued the order amid continued false claims about widespread fraud in the 2020 election. The president cited the need for “free, fair, and honest elections unmarred by fraud, errors, or suspicion,” but critics said the order served only to suppress voter access.
The Department of Homeland Security and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), under Trump’s own administration, had declared the 2020 election to be “the most secure in American history.” Yet, Trump and his allies have continued to dispute the legitimacy of the results, a theme that carried into this year’s directive.
Constitution and Federal Law at the Center
Judge Casper’s decision reinforced the principle that while U.S. citizenship is required to vote in federal elections, the power to regulate election procedures lies with Congress—not the executive branch.
“The Constitution does not grant the president authority to change the content of voter registration forms,” she emphasized.
The ruling also protects long-standing statutory frameworks such as the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, which governs military voting, and prevents unilateral changes that would bypass notice, comment, and state consultation.
Reactions from States and Advocates
New York Attorney General Letitia James, one of the lead plaintiffs, called the decision a “major victory for voting rights.”
“No president has the power to steal that right from the American people,” James said. “Today’s win ensures that eligible New Yorkers will be able to register and vote without fear of disenfranchisement.”
Others echoed the concern that the executive order was not just legally flawed but politically motivated, aimed at energizing a voting base increasingly suspicious of U.S. electoral integrity.
What Comes Next
With similar injunctions already granted by a judge in Washington, D.C., this latest decision deals a significant blow to the Trump administration’s efforts to reshape federal election rules via executive action.
The case will proceed toward a full trial unless the administration appeals. Legal experts say the separation of powersand constitutional constraints on executive authority will remain central issues.
For now, federal voter registration rules remain unchanged, and the ruling reinforces a key principle: any sweeping changes to voter eligibility and registration must come through Congress—not the Oval Office.
