...
By Dan Gooding
Associate News Editor
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
President Donald Trump's plan to implement citizenship requirements for registering to vote was ruled unconstitutional on Wednesday, as the president once again pressured lawmakers to pass a bill on voter ID.
U.S. District Judge Denise Casper, an Obama appointee, said that the U.S. Constitution does not give Trump or any president specific powers over how elections are administered, despite arguments from the current administration over alleged election fraud.
Casper struck down key aspects of one of Trump's executive orders from the early days of his second term, including a requirement to prove citizenship when registering to vote, after arguments from multiple state attorneys general, including California, Arizona, and Massachusetts, that Trump did not have the power to make changes to elections.
Read More on Politics
Casper wrote that Trump's executive orders were "unconstitutional and void" because they violated "the separation of powers under the United States Constitution."
In a statement to Newsweek, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said Wednesday afternoon that the president's executive order was lawful and would be implemented.
"President Trump has also urged Congress to pass the SAVE America Act and other legislative proposals that would establish a uniform standard of photo ID for voting, prohibit no-excuse mail-in voting, and end the practice of ballot harvesting to secure our elections for generations to come," Jackson said.
Reacting to the ruling, California Attorney General Rob Bonto said in a press release that the fight was not over.
"While we are proud of this result, we are clear-eyed that President Trump’s attacks on voting rights and our elections show no signs of slowing down," Bonta said. "So let me be clear: we will keep fighting back every step of the way."
Immediate Impact of the Ruling
Federal agencies cannot implement or enforce:
- Proof-of-citizenship requirement
- Changes to federal registration forms
- Punishment or lawsuits over late-arriving ballots
- Funding penalties tied to these rules
The ruling means current election rules remain in place and prevents the creation of a federal documentation requirement for voter registration, something the Republican Party has been pushing for some time.
The order is a major legal setback for Trump’s attempt to reshape federal election administration through executive power ahead of the 2026 midterms.
...
Proof of US Citizenship: What Trump's Executive Order Covered
President Donald Trump’s March 2025 executive order, titled: "Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections," sought to reshape federal election rules by directing agencies to impose stricter requirements on voter registration, mail ballots and election funding.
Among its key provisions, the order instructed the Election Assistance Commission to require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship on the federal voter registration form, after longstanding claims from the president and the wider Republican Party that immigrants were frequently voting in federal elections, despite cases being extremely rare.
Those registering to vote would need to show they were born a U.S. citizen—such as through their birth certificate—before being allowed to vote in federal elections.
The executive order also asked the Pentagon to add similar requirements for military and overseas voters, and directed the Justice Department to take action against states that count mail ballots received after Election Day.
It also sought to condition federal election funding on states adopting a uniform Election Day ballot receipt deadline and complying with new voter eligibility rules.
Why States Sued
A coalition of Democratic-led states sued, arguing the president had effectively tried to rewrite federal election law without Congress. They did not dispute that only U.S. citizens can vote, but said the administration was attempting to impose new documentation requirements, funding conditions and ballot deadlines that conflict with statutes already passed by Congress.
The states framed the case as a core separation-of-powers dispute, arguing the Constitution gives authority over federal elections to states and Congress—not the executive branch. They also said the order would force states to overhaul election systems, absorb new administrative costs and risk disenfranchising eligible voters, particularly through stricter registration requirements and limits on counting lawful mail ballots.
"Generations of Americans fought tirelessly for the right to vote, and we honor their legacy by protecting that right against anyone who tries to undermine it," New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a press release on Wednesday
"I am grateful the court blocked the president’s unconstitutional attempt to seize control of our elections. As we approach this year’s midterms, I will continue doing everything in my power to protect free and fair elections and defend the sacred right to vote for New Yorkers and all Americans."
Who is Judge Denise Casper?
U.S. District Judge Denise Casper is the chief judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. She was nominated to the court by former President Barack Obama in December 2010 and became the chief judge in 2025.
In her Wednesday ruling, Casper warned Trump's order could cause practical harm, saying election administration is a "massive coordinated effort" that requires "rules of the road" to be "clear and settled."
On the voter-registration form, Casper wrote that the president’s order "unambiguously requires the EAC to implement a documentary proof of citizenship requirement as part of the Federal Form," but that such a directive conflicts with Congress’ chosen framework under the NVRA.
On mail ballots, the judge said the administration’s position was inconsistent with the text of federal election law because ballots must be cast by Election Day, not necessarily received by then.
Trump's Push for the SAVE America Act
"Only Congress has the power to adjust state election rules," Casper wrote in her ruling, issued a few hours after the president refused to sign a bipartisan housing bill into law unless Congress passes the SAVE America Act, which would create voter ID requirements.
...
The bill, which has been debated by lawmakers for months, would require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship from those registering to vote in federal elections. It would also impose stricter photo ID requirements at the ballot box.
Supporters say it would bolster election security, while critics argue it could make voting more difficult for eligible Americans lacking easy access to required documents.
Trump has made the measure a central legislative priority, repeatedly urging Congress to pass it and framing it as essential to election integrity. The bill cleared the House earlier this year but has stalled in the Senate, where it faces unified Democratic opposition and divisions among Republicans over strategy.
What Happens Next
The case is not fully over. Casper noted that the parties must report by July 10 whether the states intend to continue pressing one remaining claim involving non-ballot-receipt states and another section of the executive order.
Even if Trump cannot impose these changes himself, the court's decision may place even greater pressure on Congress to pass the SAVE America Act.
Update 6/24/26, 6:43 p.m. ET: This article was updated with comment from Abigail Jackson.
Contact Newsweek editors on this story: Gabe Whisnant, Sam Wilson and Gray R. Thomas.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines