An Obama-appointed federal judge on Wednesday permanently barred the Trump administration from implementing key parts of a 2025 executive order aimed at strengthening voter citizenship verification and tightening election procedures, ruling that the president lacks constitutional authority to overhaul how elections are run.
U.S. District Judge Denise J. Casper, sitting in Boston, converted her preliminary injunction from last year into a permanent ban on most provisions of the March 25, 2025, executive order titled “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections.” The blocked measures included directing the U.S. Election Assistance Commission to require documentary proof of citizenship — such as a passport or birth certificate — on the federal voter registration form, prohibiting states from counting mail ballots received after Election Day even if postmarked on time, and threatening to withhold federal funds from non-compliant states.
Judge Casper’s ruling emphasized separation of powers. “The Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections,” she wrote. She added that “Our Constitution vests control over federal elections in the States, subject to some oversight by Congress.” The judge also rejected the administration’s claims of widespread problems, stating there was “no evidence in this record of widespread ‘illegal voting, discrimination, fraud, and other forms of malfeasance and error’ within American elections.”
The lawsuit was brought by a coalition of Democratic-led states, including New York, California, and others. New York Attorney General Letitia James welcomed the decision, calling it a block on an “unconstitutional attempt to seize control of our elections.” She added: “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.”
The Trump administration has defended the order as a necessary step to enforce existing federal law, which prohibits non-citizens from voting in federal elections and requires states to maintain accurate voter rolls. Supporters argue that requiring documentary proof closes loopholes, restores public confidence, and prevents even rare instances of ineligible voting. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller sharply criticized the ruling, describing Judge Casper as a “rogue” Obama-appointed judge and warning on social media that he hoped Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts “understands the path these rogue judges have charted for the judiciary.”
The order was one of President Trump’s early actions in his second term to address what the administration described as failures by some states to adequately verify citizenship and secure elections. Federal law already requires voters to affirm citizenship under penalty of perjury on registration forms, but the executive order sought to add a documentary requirement through changes to federal forms and agency practices.
Critics of the order, including voting rights groups and the plaintiff states, argued it would create unnecessary barriers for eligible citizens — particularly those without easy access to passports or updated birth certificates — and represented an improper federal power grab over an area traditionally managed by states and Congress.
This is not the only legal setback for the administration’s election agenda. Separate federal judges have also blocked or limited other provisions from the same order and a subsequent executive order. The Trump administration has continued to push for legislative solutions, including the SAVE America Act, which would codify proof-of-citizenship requirements into statute.
The permanent injunction takes effect immediately for the covered provisions, though the administration could appeal to higher courts, including the Supreme Court. Related challenges to mail-ballot deadlines and other election rules remain pending in other venues.
The ruling underscores the ongoing tension between the executive branch’s push for stronger federal election safeguards and judicial findings that such changes must come through Congress or state action rather than unilateral presidential directive.
