In a significant legal ruling, a federal judge halted an executive order issued by President Donald Trump that aimed to reshape the way elections are conducted in the U.S.
The decision, handed down on Friday, sided with Democratic state attorneys general who argued that the order overstepped constitutional boundaries.
According to the Associated Press, the executive directive, issued on March 25, sought to impose stricter regulations on voter registration and ballot submission.
Specifically, it would have required documentary proof of citizenship for all federal election registrants, limited ballot acceptance to only those received by Election Day, and tied federal election funding to compliance with these new regulations.
State attorneys general strongly opposed the measure, contending that it “usurps the States’ constitutional power and seeks to amend election law by fiat.”
Meanwhile, the White House defended the order, calling it a necessary move to protect the integrity of elections and describing proof of citizenship as a “commonsense” safeguard.
Presiding over the case, Judge Denise J. Casper of the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts ruled in favor of the states, stating they had a strong legal argument.
“The Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections,” Casper wrote in her decision.
Casper further noted that “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.”
However, Casper acknowledged that enforcing the order would place undue financial and procedural burdens on the states.
A separate federal court in Washington, D.C., had previously blocked portions of the order, particularly the proof-of-citizenship requirement.
The executive order would have forced states to reject any absentee ballots arriving after Election Day, potentially disenfranchising thousands of voters.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 18 states and Puerto Rico currently permit the counting of ballots postmarked by Election Day, even if they arrive later. Officials in Oregon and Washington — two states that rely heavily on mail-in voting — filed a separate lawsuit, arguing the rule would unfairly impact their voters.
Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs highlighted that over 300,000 ballots in the state had arrived after Election Day in 2024.
Though the order has received praise from election officials in some Republican-led states, many legal scholars caution that it oversteps presidential authority. They emphasize that the Constitution grants states control over election processes while giving Congress the power to regulate federal elections — not the president.
