A federal judge on Friday halted major pieces of President Donald Trump’s executive order that would have required citizenship verification for voters in U.S. elections.
In a 110-page decision, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly (District of Columbia) struck down two provisions targeted in three separate lawsuits, writing that the White House cannot rewrite federal election rules on its own.
“Our Constitution does not allow the President to impose unilateral changes to federal election procedures,” Kollar-Kotelly wrote.
Why It Matters
In the years since the 2020 election, Trump has repeatedly claimed widespread voter fraud and has argued that it is largely driven by people who are not eligible to vote, including immigrants. He has pushed for nationwide voter registration requirements—especially proof of citizenship—but critics have warned that such changes raise separation-of-powers concerns and could create new hurdles for eligible voters.
What To Know
The ruling addressed three cases brought by the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the Democratic National Convention, and the League of Women Voters Education Fund. The groups said Trump’s executive order—signed in March 2025—triggered broad concerns for voters and election administrators.
The executive order was presented as a directive for federal agencies to help ensure elections were “honest and worthy of the public trust.” Among other steps, it instructed the Election Assistance Commission to act within 30 days to require people registering for federal elections to prove U.S. citizenship.
Kollar-Kotelly did not block the order in full. Instead, she prevented specific provisions from taking effect after concluding the president lacks constitutional authority to unilaterally change how federal elections are run—authority she said belongs to Congress.
One of the provisions she blocked was the broad proof-of-citizenship requirement tied to federal voter registration.
She also rejected a separate directive aimed at military voters and Americans living abroad. Trump had ordered the Defense Department secretary to add passport- or birth certificate-style proof of citizenship to Federal Post Card Applications used by service members and overseas citizens. The judge ruled that this change conflicted with the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, which is intended to keep voting access straightforward for those populations.
Non-citizens are already barred from registering in most elections nationwide, particularly at the federal level, though some jurisdictions allow limited participation for lawful permanent residents in certain local or state contests. Instances of voter fraud remain rare, and the Center for Election Innovation and Research reported in July 2025 that many claims of widespread fraud often shrink substantially once voter rolls and data are examined.
Other parts of the legal challenges were dismissed for now. Those included issues related to cutting state funding over voter-form rules—because that portion had already been blocked—and attempts to stop states from counting mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day, which the judge described as tied to future, uncertain actions.
Meanwhile on Capitol Hill, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise of Louisiana has proposed an amendment that would require all voters to show a photo ID in order to cast a ballot.
What People Are Saying
Juan Proaño, CEO of LULAC, to Newsweek in a statement: “This decision defends a basic principle of our democracy: Congress and the states set the rules for federal elections. They are not dictated by unilateral decrees from the White House. The provisions the court blocked would have created new barriers and confusion for eligible voters, but the court reaffirmed that the president has no role to play in elections. LULAC will keep fighting any attempt to make voting harder by federal agencies.”
Kollar-Kotelly, in her ruling Friday: “In our constitutional order, the President can neither make law nor rewrite the law that Congress has enacted… As this Court has explained at some length in two prior opinions in these consolidated cases, the President’s power is “at its lowest ebb” when he seeks to alter federal election regulations to require new methods of proving voter eligibility.”
Scalise, on his plans to alter the SAVE Act to require voter ID: “I think a lot of Americans would like that protection because if they’re following the rules, they just want everybody else to. What makes people angry is when you see boxes of ballots showing up two weeks after an election, and the next thing you know, lo and behold, a Democrat takes the lead after being behind for three weeks after Election Day.”
What Happens Next
Kollar-Kotelly noted that the U.S. Supreme Court is weighing the issue of Election Day deadlines for mail-in ballots, and said the eventual decision could have broader implications—potentially influencing how far presidential power can reach when it comes to election-related rules.
