Federal judge bars Trump administration from proof-of-citizenship voting requirement

A federal judge in Boston has permanently blocked most of President Donald Trump’s executive order that would have required documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote, marking a major setback for the administration’s effort to tighten federal election rules.

U.S. District Judge Denise Casper ruled on June 24, 2026, that the president does not have authority to impose election rules of that kind. In her view, the Constitution leaves that power to the states and to Congress, not the White House.

The ruling turns a preliminary injunction Casper issued about a year earlier into a permanent ban on the challenged provisions. It means the administration cannot enforce the proof-of-citizenship requirement through the executive order at issue in the case.

What the judge blocked

The order Casper blocked did more than target voter registration. It also included provisions that would have stopped some mail ballots postmarked by Election Day from being counted and would have threatened federal funding for states that did not comply with the administration’s election directives.

Those broader parts of the order were challenged alongside the citizenship requirement, and Casper’s permanent ruling covered the provisions reported by the Associated Press and corroborated by other outlets.

The case was brought by Democratic state attorneys general, who argued that the administration was trying to rewrite election rules that belong to state governments and Congress. Casper agreed with that core separation-of-powers argument.

Chronology of the fight

The court fight followed Trump’s executive order and an earlier temporary ruling that had already blocked the challenged provisions. Thursday’s decision made that earlier protection permanent.

That sequence matters because the challenged order never took effect before the court’s final ruling. For now, the federal government remains unable to use the executive order to impose proof-of-citizenship documentation as a voter-registration requirement.

The ruling also lands in the middle of a broader national fight over mail voting, voter registration and who controls election administration. The dispute has become one of the clearest tests of how far a president can go through executive action in an area traditionally governed by states and Congress.

Reactions and stakes

New York Attorney General Letitia James and California Attorney General Rob Bonta welcomed the ruling as a victory for voting rights and for state control over elections, according to the reporting.

The White House defended the order, AP reported, underscoring that the administration still sees the issue as a legitimate federal election-policy fight rather than a settled loss.

The stakes extend beyond the courtroom. Proof-of-citizenship rules have long been politically charged because critics say they can burden eligible voters who do not have ready access to passports, birth certificates or other documentation. Supporters say the measures are needed to guard against noncitizen voting.

AP reported that noncitizen voting is rare and already punishable as a felony, which puts the administration’s justification for sweeping new federal requirements under added scrutiny.

What happens next

The Trump administration can appeal the permanent injunction, and the ruling does not end broader legal and political fights over federal election rules.

Trump has also pushed the SAVE America Act in Congress, which would pursue a similar proof-of-citizenship policy through legislation. In the reporting, that effort was still stalled in the Senate.

The case leaves the immediate policy landscape unchanged: the executive-order provisions remain blocked, and any further move to impose a documentary citizenship requirement for federal voter registration will face continued legal and political resistance.

The decision also preserves the central boundary Casper identified in her ruling: states and Congress set election rules, not the president.

,