Search Articles
(CN) — A Massachusetts federal judge on Wednesday gutted an executive order signed by President Donald Trump last year that created unconstitutional barriers to voting and gave unprecedented power to the executive branch.
“Contrary to defendant’s contention, the executive order does not ‘effectuate the mandates laid out by Congress,’ but rather contravenes the NVRA, HAVA and UOCAVA and is ultra vires and a violation of the separation of powers,” Chief U.S. District Judge Denise Casper said in the 59-page ruling.
The Barack Obama appointee ultimately agreed with a coalition of 19 states, finding the challenged portions of the executive order exceed Trump’s constitutional powers and intrude upon Congress’ exclusive power to regulate federal election procedure.
The executive order — titled “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections” — consolidated election regulation underneath the U.S. Election Assistance Commission and the secretary of defense.
It called on the secretary to require proof of citizenship for federal voter registration forms and commanded the attorney general to take action against 13 states that accept ballots mailed on or before Election Day but received afterward, as well as those with laws allowing voters to cure minor mistakes after casting a ballot.
The order also conditioned grant funding on compliance with proof of citizenship and timely voting requirements.
A coalition of 19 states sued in April 2025 and won a preliminary injunction in June 2025, which the government appealed but remains pending in the First Circuit. The government later moved for summary judgment in December 2025, and the states moved for partial judgment, bringing the case to this point.
Casper dispensed of the government’s threshold arguments asserting the states lacked standing or lacked a cause of action because their challenges arise from statutory violations.
An ultra vires — or “beyond the powers” — claim rarely succeeds as the states’ did, according to Casper.
However, the argument is not that Trump failed to discharge his duties or strayed from procedures required by the statute, but rather that his directive exceeds his authority.
“As the states note, the ‘crux’ of their challenges to the executive order … is the constitutional claim that the challenged provisions fall outside the president’s constitutional powers and intrude on Congress’ exclusive power to regulate federal election procedure,” Casper said.
Two other courts already considered Trump’s executive order and similarly found it is “not authorized by the Constitution” and “the president has no constitutional power over election regulation that would support this unilateral exercise of authority.”
The government unsuccessfully argued that the order is actually supported by current election law, and that the president has the authority to direct the election assistance commission.
Casper permanently enjoined the government, except Trump, from implementing or enforcing the challenged provisions after finding the states established they pose an immediate and irreparable harm of disenfranchisement and loss of federal funding.
The proof of citizenship requirement in particular would create barriers for many, as the majority of REAL IDs do not include citizenship information and many voting-age citizens do not have a passport.
In Arizona, a state-imposed proof of citizenship requirement barred 37,000 voters from registration due to lack of proper paperwork, according to the judge.
Disqualifying ballots that are postmarked by election day but arrive late would also disproportionately harm military voters, elderly voters, rural voters and disabled voters, Casper noted.
“On the other hand, there is no evidence in this record of widespread ‘illegal voting, discrimination, fraud and other forms of malfeasance and error’ within American elections, which the executive order purports to safeguard against,” Casper said.
The 19 states behind the lawsuit include California, Nevada, Massachusetts, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland; Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin — all states with Democratic attorneys general.
New York Attorney General Letitia James praised the court in a statement on Wednesday for blocking Trump’s attempt to “seize control” of 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,” James said. “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.”
Follow @desdev5Subscribe to our free newsletters
Our weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.
