A federal court has dealt a major blow to President Donald Trump’s controversial executive order aimed at reshaping the nation’s election rules, ruling it unconstitutional and a clear overreach of presidential authority.
On Friday, U.S. District Judge Denise J. Casper blocked the March 25 directive, siding with Democratic attorneys general from several states who filed a legal challenge. Trump’s order sought sweeping changes to federal election procedures, including a mandate for documentary proof of citizenship to register, rejection of mail-in ballots arriving after Election Day, and tying federal election funds to compliance with these new restrictions.
“The Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections,” wrote Judge Casper in her ruling, affirming the states’ likely success in challenging the legality of the order.
RELATED STORIES
The court found that Trump’s attempt to impose uniform federal rules would place an undue burden on states, both logistically and financially. “The requirements would burden the States with significant efforts and substantial costs,” Casper noted, echoing arguments made by the plaintiffs.
Watch a recent episode of The BreakDown podcast below and subscribe to our channel PanaGenius TV for latest episodes.
Although the White House defended the order as a necessary safeguard—framing citizenship checks as a “commonsense” measure and claiming it would ensure “free, fair and honest elections”, the ruling emphasized that citizenship is already a requirement for federal voting, and voters must attest to it on registration forms.
“There is no dispute (nor could there be) that U.S. citizenship is required to vote in federal elections and the federal voter registration forms require attestation of citizenship,” the judge added.
The order also sought to bar states from counting any mail-in or absentee ballots received after Election Day, even if postmarked on or before that date, a practice currently allowed in 18 states and Puerto Rico. That portion of the directive was also blocked.
States like Oregon and Washington, which rely heavily on mail-in voting, filed separate lawsuits warning that the order risked disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of voters. Washington’s Secretary of State, Steve Hobbs, noted that in 2024, more than 300,000 ballots in the state were received after Election Day.
In their suit, the attorneys general argued that Trump’s directive “usurps the States’ constitutional power and seeks to amend election law by fiat.” Legal experts widely agreed, pointing to the Constitution’s assignment of authority over elections to the states, with Congress allowed to legislate on federal elections not the president.
“Free and fair elections are the foundation of this nation, and no president has the power to steal that right from the American people,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James, celebrating the ruling.
READ ALSO: Judge rules Trump acted lawfully in removing African Development Agency board members
This marks the second judicial rebuke of Trump’s executive order. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., had previously blocked provisions involving the proof-of-citizenship mandate for federal registration.
Despite repeated claims by Trump about widespread voter fraud, including his persistent and unsubstantiated assertions that millions voted illegally in 2016 and 2020, investigations and studies have found that illegal voting by noncitizens is extremely rare and often the result of clerical errors.
The Department of Justice and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment, according to AP. During earlier court hearings, DOJ attorney Bridget O’Hickey defended the order, saying it was designed to replace inconsistent state rules with uniform federal standards. She also speculated that ballots received after Election Day might be vulnerable to manipulation, a claim the court appeared to dismiss, given existing safeguards like postmark verification.
While Trump’s order found support among election officials in some Republican-led states, who view it as a tool to combat fraud and clean up voter rolls, Friday’s ruling reaffirmed that no part of the Constitution gives the president authority to regulate elections, a power reserved for states and, in federal contexts, Congress.
READ ALSO: Federal judge blocks Trump administration’s DEI, trans restrictions in grant programs
