Federal court partially blocks Trump’s order imposing new voter requirements – JURIST

The DC federal court on Thursday blocked key parts of President Donald Trump’s latest sweeping March executive order that sought to impose new voting requirements nationwide and reshape federal election procedures.

Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ruled that the president lacked the constitutional authority to require proof of US citizenship for all federal voter registrations—declaring the executive move a violation of the basic separation of powers principles enshrined in the Constitution.

Stating that “Our Constitution entrusts Congress and the states—not the president—with the authority to regulate federal elections,” Kollar-Kotelly said Trump’s order attempted to “short-circuit Congress’s deliberative process” by executive fiat at a time when lawmakers are actively debating federal election reforms.

The court granted a preliminary injunction halting the implementation of a mandate forcing the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to amend the national voter registration form to require documentary proof of citizenship and a directive requiring federal voter registration agencies to “assess” the citizenship of individuals receiving public assistance before offering voter registration.

However, not all of Trump’s executive order was stopped. The court refused to block provisions related to tightening mail ballot deadlines and opening government databases to the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) for citizenship checks. The judge determined that challenges to those sections were either premature or brought by the wrong plaintiffs.

Kollar-Kotelly noted that individual states, which administer elections, were better positioned to challenge the threat to withhold federal funding from states that failed to meet new mail ballot deadlines. Indeed, multiple state-led lawsuits are already underway, promising further legal battles ahead.

The court emphasized that the case was not about whether Trump’s policy ideas were wise or effective, but whether he had the authority to impose them at all:

The states have initial authority to regulate elections… Congress has supervisory authority over those regulations. The president does not feature at all. In fact, executive regulatory authority over federal elections does not appear to have crossed the framers’ minds.

The court also made clear that allowing the executive order to stand would upend the nation’s constitutional structure and grant the president unprecedented control over elections.

This decision leaves Trump’s broader election overhaul plan wounded but still alive in parts — at least until the higher courts weigh in. The Trump administration is expected to appeal, signaling that the fight over federal election control could become one of the defining legal battles heading into the 2026 midterms.

Meanwhile, the Election Assistance Commission and other federal agencies are left navigating legal uncertainty. Chair of the US Election Assistance Commission Donald Palmer is expected to comply with the court’s order but continues to review the ruling’s full implications.

The ruling was celebrated by voting rights advocates, who had argued that such changes would disenfranchise millions of eligible voters—particularly low-income individuals, married women who changed their names, and naturalized citizens lacking immediate access to citizenship documents.

Common Cause President and CEO Virginia Kase Solomón said “today is a victory for the people in the ongoing fight to protect voting rights. We said in March that presidents don’t set election law, and now a district judge has reaffirmed that fact.”