Federal Court Rejects Much of the Election Executive Order
In This Resource
In March, President Trump signed a far-reaching executive order, seeking to reshape how elections are administrated in the United States.
The order attempts to make significant changes to election law without the approval of Congress or the states, in part directing the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to add a documentary proof of citizenship requirement to the national voter registration form.
The White House said these proposed changes are necessary to preserve election integrity. Trump has falsely claimed there is widespread voter fraud in the U.S. by noncitizens. Not only is it already illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal elections, but studies and reports from states have shown it is rare.
The EAC, an independent and bipartisan federal agency, was created by Congress after the 2000 presidential election to assist state and local election officials with resources and technical support.
The executive order also sought to penalize states that allow ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted even if they arrive a few days after Election Day. Seventeen states have this kind of law. The president ordered the EAC to withhold crucial federal election grant funding from states that do not comply.
Further, the executive order sought to amend the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) 2.0, a national standard for election equipment. Fifteen state attorneys general submitted a letter to the EAC during public comment, arguing the proposed changes were not developed through the proper process as outlined in federal law—the president cannot unilaterally change the guidelines nor force the EAC to do anything. The letter also claims the executive order makes misleading suggestions about barcodes on ballots and could hurt voters with disabilities.
In April, attorneys general from 19 states sued the Trump administration over portions of the executive order, arguing it was plainly unconstitutional.
On June 13, District Court Judge Denise Casper blocked several provisions that commanded the EAC to require documented proof of citizenship to register to vote.
Casper granted the states’ request for a preliminary injunction, halting implementation of five provisions in the executive order. The impacted provisions included ones that directed the EAC to require proof of citizenship on the national voter registration form, commanded the Department of Defense to require additional documentation from military and overseas voters, and attempted to interfere with state mail-in ballot deadlines.
The judge said the Constitution does not give the president any specific powers over elections. Therefore, Trump’s order represents “undue interference” and burdens states with “significant efforts and substantial costs,” she said.
“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,” Casper added. “The issue here is whether the President can require documentary proof of citizenship where the authority for election requirements is in the hands of Congress.”
Casper is the second federal judge to rule against the Trump administration over the president’s election executive order.
In April, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order granting a preliminary injunction, blocking the administration’s proof-of-citizenship directive to the EAC.
It is unclear how the Trump administration will respond to this latest ruling. There are several outstanding legal questions about the executive order, including provisions that would amend the VVSG 2.0 and other certification processes that set national standards for voting systems.
There is also an outstanding lawsuit that Oregon and Washington brought against the election executive order in April, calling it “illegal and burdensome.” Those states are seeking summary judgement.
In her ruling, Casper took a commonsense approach to uphold the rule of law.
She ruled against the Trump administration’s argument that a clause in the Constitution authorizes the president to overcome the will of Congress. While Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution says the president “shall take care that laws be faithfully executed,” the judge says that does not authorize the president’s attempt to wrest power from the states and Congress.
Her ruling could have broad applications, where the president is attempting to unilaterally change election law through executive action. The “Take Care Clause,” as it is broadly known, does not allow the executive branch to undermine or reverse decisions made by Congress and the states, she ruled.
Further, Casper rejected the Trump administration’s legal strategy that centers on the idea that the courts cannot block an executive order that has yet to be fully implemented.
States do not have to wait until they are criminally prosecuted by the Department of Justice to seek relief from the courts, the judge found.
This ruling also underscores how important it is that states are fighting back in the courts. Implementation of this executive order would have hurt voters by dramatically changing access to the ballot in this country. But states are able to protect those residents from burdensome new requirements.
Voting by noncitizens is exceedingly rare. The order is not a solution in search of a problem; it is a tool of voter suppression in search of a problem.
- Executive order (signed March 25, 2025)
- Order of preliminary injunction (issued June 13, 2025)