Two federal judges in Boston issued separate rulings this week blocking key provisions of two different President Donald Trump executive orders on elections, concluding that the President exceeded his authority over election administration, which belongs primarily to states and Congress.
Wednesday Ruling Blocks Citizenship Proof Requirement
On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Denise Casper permanently blocked most provisions of Trump’s first (2025) executive order on elections.
This included a requirement for documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections, restrictions on counting mail ballots received after Election Day (even if properly postmarked), and withholding federal funding from non-compliant states.
Casper ruled in favor of a coalition of 19 states, converting her prior preliminary injunction into a permanent one. She held that the President lacks authority to unilaterally alter state-administered federal elections under the Constitution’s Elections Clause.
“‘While the Constitution vests the President with ‘executive Power’ and commands him to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,’ it does not grant the President any specific powers over elections,” Casper wrote.
The lawsuit was brought by attorneys general from California, Nevada, Massachusetts, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin.
Following the ruling, California Attorney General Rob Bonta said the court had reaffirmed that authority over election regulations belongs to states and Congress.
Thursday Decision Halts Federal Voter List Order
A day later, on Thursday, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani blocked key provisions of Trump’s second (March 2026) executive order, which directed federal agencies (including DHS and USPS) to create a nationwide voter eligibility/citizenship list and restrict delivery of mail ballots based on that list.
Talwani sided with a coalition of 23 states and the District of Columbia. She granted relief (including blocking implementation of the order for the 2026 midterms) after the states argued that the order unconstitutionally violates the separation of powers.
The states argued that the executive order was unconstitutional because election rules are set by the states and Congress, not the President. Talwani agreed, writing that the challenged provisions “unconstitutionally violate the separation of powers.” She also noted that any federal citizenship list would necessarily be incomplete due to privacy restrictions.
The administration had argued that the lawsuits were premature and contended that the states lacked legal standing under the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how federal agencies develop and implement regulations.
Talwani rejected those arguments in siding with the states.
Broader Debate Over Election Authority
The rulings mark the latest legal challenges to Trump’s efforts to expand federal oversight of election procedures.
Both judges concluded that the Constitution does not grant the President direct authority to establish election rules, emphasizing that responsibility largely rests with state governments and Congress.
The Trump administration has argued that stronger federal oversight is needed to protect election integrity and maintain accurate voter rolls. Opponents contend that states have traditionally managed election administration and that significant changes require congressional approval.
The administration is expected to appeal the decisions.
