Federal judge bars Trump from implementing proof of citizenship
requirement to vote
[June 25, 2026]
By JULIE CARR SMYTH and MICHAEL CASEY
A federal judge on Wednesday permanently barred President Donald Trump’s
administration from implementing most of his first executive order on
elections, part of which sought to require people to show documentary
proof of citizenship when they register to vote.
The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Denise Casper in Boston
effectively converts a preliminary injunction she issued a year ago, in
which she temporarily blocked many of Trump’s efforts to overhaul
elections, into a permanent ban.
Casper rejected the Republican administration’s argument that the
lawsuit to block the changes brought by Democratic state attorneys
general was premature because the rules had yet to be put in place.
Instead, she agreed that the Constitution gives states and Congress the
authority to regulate elections, and that Trump’s requirements violated
the separation of powers.
The Constitution "does not grant the President any specific powers over
elections,” wrote Casper, who was nominated by former Democratic
President Barack Obama.
Among other proposed changes, Trump’s order would have required people
to provide documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote,
prevented mail ballots from being counted if they arrive after Election
Day, even if they were postmarked by then, and punished states that
failed to comply by withholding certain federal grants, including those
intended to beef up election security.
Democrats see order as a constitutional overstep
In a statement, New York Attorney General Letitia James said she was
grateful the court had blocked Trump's "unconstitutional attempt to
seize control of our elections" and would continue to defend voting
rights in this year's midterm elections.
“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," said James, a Democrat.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, whose state was the lead
plaintiff in the case, said the ruling reaffirmed the constitutional
principle that it's up to the states and Congress to set election rules.
“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, a Democrat, said in a statement. "So let me be
clear: we will keep fighting back every step of the way.”
In a statement, a White House spokeswoman said the Republican president
wants to ensure that Americans are confident in the way elections are
administered. The administration can appeal Wednesday's ruling if it
chooses.
“The President’s executive order lawfully protects our elections, and we
are confident that we will ultimately prevail in its implementation,”
spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said.
Trump also is trying to enact voting changes through Congress
The ruling was the latest in a series against the elections executive
order Trump signed just months after taking office for his second term.
He has since signed another executive order on elections that seeks to
create a national voter list and limit mail balloting. That directive
also faces multiple legal challenges.
[to top of second column]
|
Last fall, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., overseeing a
separate challenge to the first election executive order by civil
rights and Democratic Party-aligned groups blocked the government
from taking steps to include the proof-of-citizenship requirement on
the federal voter registration form. That judge later barred Trump's
defense secretary from requiring documentary proof of citizenship
when military personnel register to vote or request ballots.
In an apparent nod to the difficulty of implementing a
proof-of-citizen requirement by executive order, Trump is pushing
legislation in the Republican-controlled Congress to create such a
mandate. The SAVE America Act has passed the House but has stalled
in the Senate, leading Trump to advocate for eliminating the
filibuster that is blocking the legislation.
On Wednesday, he abruptly canceled the expected signing of a
bipartisan housing bill, saying he would not sign legislation until
Congress passes his proof of citizenship requirement for voting.
Documents need to prove citizenship not always easy to obtain
Enacting a proof-of-citizenship requirement to vote can be
complicated, especially if it's done on the eve of a major election
with little time for states or voters to adjust.
A 2025 University of Maryland study estimates that 21.3 million
Americans who are eligible to vote do not have — or don't have easy
access to — documents to prove their citizenship. That includes
nearly 10% of Democrats, 7% of Republicans and 14% of people
unaffiliated with either major party.
Only about half of Americans have a passport, which can take four to
six weeks to obtain and cost around $165. And the processing time
for an online birth certificate can take anywhere from a few days to
12 weeks. Married women who have changed their names might need
additional documentation, such as a marriage certificate.
A proof-of-citizenship requirement that passed in Kansas 15 years
ago ended up blocking the voter registrations of more than 31,000
U.S. citizens who were otherwise eligible to vote before the law was
halted by the courts.
The president and many of his Republican allies have been promoting
the narrative that voting by noncitizens is a major problem, when in
fact it's quite rare. The federal voter registration form already
requires people to attest that they are U.S. citizens. Violating
that is punishable as a felony that can lead to prison or
deportation.
In another major voting case, the U.S. Supreme Court is due to issue
an opinion soon on whether mail ballots must arrive by Election Day.
That could immediately change the rules in 14 states that allow
grace periods ranging from days to weeks if the ballots are
postmarked by Election Day.
All contents © copyright 2026 Associated Press. All rights reserved
 |
