- Atlas News
- Posts
- Trump Blocked: Court Says No to Citizenship Proof for Voting
Trump Blocked: Court Says No to Citizenship Proof for Voting
Ruling defends state voting authority, stops federal push to rewrite ballot access laws.
sean h
June 13, 2025
In a significant legal rebuke, a U.S. federal judge has blocked key provisions of former President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at overhauling federal election rules — an effort critics say threatened to upend state-controlled voting systems just months ahead of the 2026 midterms.
⚖️ The Ruling:
On Friday, U.S. District Judge Denise Casper in Boston issued a preliminary injunction stopping the Trump administration from enforcing several parts of its March 25 executive order. That order included two major provisions:
Requiring documentary proof of U.S. citizenship in order to register to vote in federal elections.
Banning states from counting mail-in ballots received after Election Day, even if they are postmarked on time.
The case was brought by 19 Democratic-led states, arguing the order was an unconstitutional federal overreach into election procedures — a realm traditionally managed by individual states.
🛑 Judge Casper, an Obama appointee, agreed, writing:
“The Constitution does not grant the president any specific powers over elections.”
She added that current federal law only requires ballots to be cast by Election Day — not received. That distinction allows 13 of the suing states to continue counting ballots that are postmarked by Election Day but arrive shortly after.
📬 This portion of the ruling effectively protects mail-in voting rules in those states and blocks the Department of Justice from pursuing civil or criminal penalties against states that defy Trump’s order.
📜 Citizenship Proof? Not Without Congress
Another flashpoint in Trump’s executive order involved the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. The administration wanted the agency to update voter registration forms to require proof of citizenship — such as a passport or birth certificate — before allowing someone to register.
Judge Casper shot this down too, writing that while U.S. citizenship is a requirement to vote in federal elections, only Congress has the authority to impose such documentation requirements.
“The authority for election requirements is in the hands of Congress,” she wrote. “And Congress has never mandated documentary proof of citizenship.”
Critics have warned that such a requirement would disenfranchise eligible voters — especially among low-income, elderly, or rural populations — who may not have easy access to the documentation.
🏛️ Reactions from Both Sides
The ruling sparked predictable reactions from both camps.
💬 White House spokesperson Harrison Fields responded by saying Trump “will keep fighting for election integrity, despite Democrat objections that reveal their disdain for commonsense safeguards like verifying citizenship.”
“Free and fair elections are the bedrock of our constitutional republic,” Fields said. “We’re confident in securing an ultimate victory in the courtroom.”
Trump and his Republican allies have frequently pushed the narrative of widespread voter fraud — especially involving non-citizens — despite a lack of credible evidence. Multiple independent reviews, state audits, and court rulings have found that non-citizen voting is extremely rare in the U.S.
💬 On the other side, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who co-led the legal challenge, praised the ruling as a major win for democracy.
“This ruling stops Trump’s unconstitutional attempt to interfere with states’ fundamental responsibilities to manage and administer our elections.”
🔎 Bigger Picture: A Legal Domino Effect
This isn’t the first time Trump’s executive order has faced judicial scrutiny. A judge in Washington blocked parts of it back in April. But Judge Casper’s ruling goes further — tackling the heart of Trump’s election authority claims and bolstering the idea that elections must remain in the hands of the states, not the Oval Office.
📌 The broader legal landscape suggests more challenges are coming. Multiple states, advocacy groups, and watchdog organizations have suits pending in various federal courts.
With the 2026 midterm elections on the horizon, and Trump making election integrity a core part of his ongoing campaign narrative, these legal battles will likely become a recurring flashpoint.
🧠 Final Thought: Law vs. Politics
At its core, this case is a clash between federal authority and state sovereignty, fueled by partisan distrust and a fraught history of election denialism.
Trump’s push for tighter election rules may resonate with parts of his base — but courts are making it clear: The president can’t rewrite voting laws by executive order. Not now. Not ever.
📬 Whether it’s mail-in ballots, voter registration, or ballot deadlines, the message from Judge Casper’s courtroom is simple: Follow the Constitution. Let the states lead.
Reply