Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Directive to Require Proof of Citizenship for Voter Registration

Groups challenging the order ‘are substantially likely to prevail,’ the judge ruled.

A student fills out a voter registration form at Morehouse College in Atlanta on Aug. 19, 2024. Elijah Nouvelage/ AFP via Getty Images

A judge on April 24 blocked President Donald Trump’s directive that officials require people provide proof of U.S. citizenship in order to register to vote.

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly said in an order that the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) must stop taking action to require a passport or other proof of citizenship for voter registration.

Trump in a March order said that the EAC, established by Congress to help officials administer elections, shall take steps to require “documentary proof of United States citizenship” in its national mail voter registration form. The commission had recently advised states that it is considering how to amend the federal form, which enables people to register to vote.

Groups and Democrats challenging the section of Trump’s order pertaining to proof of citizenship “are substantially likely to prevail” in their case, Kollar-Kotelly ruled.

“Our Constitution entrusts Congress and the States—not the President—with the authority to regulate federal elections,” she wrote. “Consistent with that allocation of power, Congress is currently debating legislation that would effect many of the changes the President purports to order. And no statutory delegation of authority to the Executive Branch permits the President to short-circuit Congress’s deliberative process by executive order.”

Harrison Fields, a White House spokesman, told The Epoch Times in an email: “President 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, and we’re confident in securing an ultimate victory in the courtroom.”

Marc Elias, a lawyer representing some of the plaintiffs, said on the social media platform BlueSky that the ruling was a “big victory for our clients.”

Organizations, including the League of United Latin American Citizens, and Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), sued over the president’s order, alleging that it violates the U.S. Constitution.

They pointed to a federal law that states in part that a person applying to vote can sign the form under penalty of perjury to attest that they are a citizen.

“The Executive Order seeks to impose burdensome proof of citizenship requirements based on documents millions of Americans do not possess,” one complaint stated.

The suits were consolidated for review by Kollar-Kotelly.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) had asked the judge not to grant a preliminary injunction, arguing that the harms identified by the plaintiffs were speculative.

“It is telling that of all the Plaintiffs in this case, none are individually named voters who claim they would be injured but for this Court’s immediate intervention,” the DOJ wrote in a filing. “And these Plaintiffs have thus far been unable to identify by name the voters they purport to represent.”

They also told the judge that officials had not begun to implement the aspect of the order concerning proof of citizenship and that the implementation “may never occur.”

Kollar-Kotelly said that was not true, pointing to how the executive director of the EAC had recently contacted states about the order and said it was considering how to amend the federal registration form.

The judge did agree with the government on some of its arguments, including that the plaintiffs do not meet the legal requirements to challenge other sections of the order, including a part that directs the attorney general to take action against states that count mail ballots received after Election Day.

“On the present record, challenges to those provisions are premature or properly presented not by these plaintiffs but by the States themselves,” the judge said, noting that some states have challenged the order in other federal courts.