A federal judge has permanently blocked the Trump administration from enforcing an executive order that would have required voters to provide proof of citizenship when registering and mandated that mail-in ballots be received by Election Day.

Get today's headlines by email

In a ruling issued on Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Denise Casper said the president does not have the constitutional authority to regulate elections, rejecting the administration’s claims that the measures were needed to address widespread voter fraud and other election-related misconduct.

Court Finds President Lacks Election Authority

Judge Casper wrote that while the Constitution grants the president executive powers and requires the faithful execution of laws, it does not give the White House specific authority over the administration of elections.

The decision stems from a lawsuit filed in Boston by a coalition of state attorneys general in April of last year. The group sought to block Trump’s first executive order on voting, which aimed to require documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration and establish a nationwide Election Day deadline for mail-in ballots.

Judge Casper had already issued a preliminary injunction against the policy in June last year. Her latest 59-page ruling makes that block permanent.

Fraud Claims Rejected

The judge said the administration failed to provide evidence supporting its allegations of widespread election fraud, illegal voting, discrimination, or other systemic problems that the executive order claimed to address.

“There is no evidence in this record” of the widespread misconduct cited in the order, Casper wrote, adding that the measures could have prevented thousands of eligible voters from casting ballots.

She concluded that the policy risked disenfranchising lawful voters while lacking a factual basis to justify its restrictions.

Broader Legal Challenges Continue

The ruling is the latest setback for the administration’s efforts to reshape election procedures through executive action.

Several lawsuits are also challenging Trump’s second voting-related executive order, which sought to establish a national database of approved voters. Earlier this week, another federal judge blocked an attempt to use an immigration database to verify voter rolls.

Courts in multiple jurisdictions have additionally rejected efforts by the Department of Justice to obtain state voter-registration records.

The decision leaves election administration largely in the hands of states and Congress, while legal battles over the administration’s broader voting initiatives continue.

Join the discussion?

Already a member?

Adapted by ASEAN Now. Source 25 June 2026

View full article

Why would any judge block legislation which ensures fair voting ?

10 minutes ago, Thingamabob said:

Why would any judge block legislation which ensures fair voting ?

Perhaps because of being affiliated with the syndrome disorder.

Another dem judge showing they know if only legal US citizens and people that are alive can vote dems would rarely win, this is an absolute set up by dems to ensure they can cheat to win, why would anyone not want proof that the voters are alive or US citizens unless it is to win by illegal means

We should make a list of all the documented federal elections where the outcome has been affected by voter fraud in the last 20 years.

Most of the judges involved are Republicans, as were those in the many cases rejected after the 2020 election.

Gotta love the way they frame it as "permanently blocks". As if it can't be overturned on appeal.

Not to mention, a district judge is only allowed to rule on issues in her district, and their rulings only apply in that district.

You don't mistrust the MSM nearly enough.

I am British obviously, but if I were an American, I am certain I would be a Republican.

The Democrats over there seem to be like the UK Labour Party.

Rudderless, full of great ideas, but they want the wealthy to pay for it all, and then tax the wealthy so much, they quit the country.

Same in the UK.

Most of the judges involved are Republicans, as were those in the many cases rejected after the 2020 election.

The vast majority of the cases "rejected" after 2020 were rejected on issues of standing. Not the merits.

4 minutes ago, Kung69 said:

Most of the judges involved are Republicans, as were those in the many cases rejected after the 2020 election.

U.S. District Judge Denise Casper is a Democrat, having been nominated to the federal bench by Democratic President Barack Obama in 2010.

She currently serves as the Chief Judge for the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts

22 minutes ago, Thingamabob said:

Why would any judge block legislation which ensures fair voting ?

Because they're a leftist, activist judge. She's an Obama appointee.

5 minutes ago, lou norman said:

We should make a list of all the federal elections where the outcome has been affected by voter fraud in the last 20 years.

It would be insignificant with Republicans likely leading the list.

"The percentage of fraudulent votes was a minuscule .0000845%, and no election outcome was altered by ballot fraud throughout that time period." https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-widespread-is-election-fraud-in-the-united-states-not-very/

Ironically, many of the states where GOP/MAGA has claimed voter fraud had Republican Secretary of State responsible for secure voting not finding any significant or zero voter fraud. Georgia case in point!

9 minutes ago, Scouse123 said:

full of great ideas

Not sure if unfettered immigration, defunding the police, allowing children to be given gender reaffirming drugs, allowing men to play in women's sports etc., etc. are great ideas.

38 minutes ago, Thingamabob said:

Why would any judge block legislation which ensures fair voting ?

Clearly because trump does not have the power under the US Constitution to dictate any election procedures. Under the US Constitution that power is designated to each of the 50 states.

39 minutes ago, Thingamabob said:

Why would any judge block legislation which ensures fair voting ?

It’s not legislation, it’s an executive order.

13 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Because they're a leftist, activist judge. She's an Obama appointee.

Living in the past again !!! Who cares who appointed the judge !! as-long as he/she keeps to the judicial oath, which is a solemn pledge taken by judges before assuming office, swearing to faithfully and impartially discharge their duties, uphold the constitution, and administer justice without bias, since you are a MAGA oath's don't mean much to you

27 minutes ago, seajae said:

Another dem judge showing they know if only legal US citizens and people that are alive can vote dems would rarely win, this is an absolute set up by dems to ensure they can cheat to win, why would anyone not want proof that the voters are alive or US citizens unless it is to win by illegal means

Cute but a false flag. trump has hammered on this since he lost the 2020 election. after numerous cases brought before various courts the false claimes have been rejected as false.

22 minutes ago, impulse said:

Gotta love the way they frame it as "permanently blocks". As if it can't be overturned on appeal.

Not to mention, a district judge is only allowed to rule on issues in her district, and their rulings only apply in that district.

You don't mistrust the MSM nearly enough.

The legal verbiage is probably “permanently blocked” as opposed to his preliminary injunction. That’s probably why.

28 minutes ago, lou norman said:

We should make a list of all the documented federal elections where the outcome has been affected by voter fraud in the last 20 years.

It would be a very, very, very short list.

It would be a very, very, very short list.

Not according to Hillary and Joy Behar.

`

5 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

Living in the past again !!! Who cares who appointed the judge !! as-long as he/she keeps to the judicial oath, which is a solemn pledge taken by judges before assuming office, swearing to faithfully and impartially discharge their duties, uphold the constitution, and administer justice without bias, since you are a MAGA oath's don't mean much to you

Most important here, especially for non-USA citizens (or those who missed class that day) ... under the US Constitution, the President has no power over elections. Does not matter if this is a Federal District Judge ... Constitution states clearly, elections are regulated by each of the 50 states.

6 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

Living in the past again !!! Who cares who appointed the judge !! as-long as he/she keeps to the judicial oath, which is a solemn pledge taken by judges before assuming office, swearing to faithfully and impartially discharge their duties, uphold the constitution, and administer justice without bias, since you are a MAGA oath's don't mean much to you

Bit like this one one then.

Judge upholds the conviction of former Wisconsin judge Hannah Dugan for helping immigrant evade ICE

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/judge-upholds-the-conviction-of-former-wisconsin-judge-hannah-dugan-for-helping-immigrant-evade-ice

26 minutes ago, Scouse123 said:

U.S. District Judge Denise Casper is a Democrat, having been nominated to the federal bench by Democratic President Barack Obama in 2010.

She currently serves as the Chief Judge for the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts

Thanks, but I took that as read.

30 minutes ago, impulse said:

Gotta love the way they frame it as "permanently blocks". As if it can't be overturned on appeal.

"A permanent injunction is a court order requiring a person to do or cease doing a specific action that is issued as a final judgment in a case."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/permanent_injunction

2 minutes ago, impulse said:

Not according to Hillary and Joy Behar.

I believe it is your lord and savior who keeps harping that the 2020 election was stolen from him. On a daily basis. Ad infinitum. Without a lick of proof.

19 minutes ago, Front Row said:

It’s not legislation, it’s an executive order.

Whichever. Why would it be blocked ?

8 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Bit like this one one then.

Judge upholds the conviction of former Wisconsin judge Hannah Dugan for helping immigrant evade ICE

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/judge-upholds-the-conviction-of-former-wisconsin-judge-hannah-dugan-for-helping-immigrant-evade-ice

Are you stupid !! of course there are bad apples in every walks of life, and as i said as-long as he/she keeps to the judicial oath, we don't live in a perfect world

30 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Not sure if unfettered immigration, defunding the police, allowing children to be given gender reaffirming drugs, allowing men to play in women's sports etc., etc. are great ideas.

I was being sarcastic.

24 minutes ago, Front Row said:

It’s not legislation, it’s an executive order.

Whatever it is, is it a good idea, or not ?

I believe it is your lord and savior who keeps harping that the 2020 election was stolen from him. On a daily basis. Ad infinitum. Without a lick of proof.

Texas, 17 other states and over 150 congressmen agreed that there were enough irregularities to delay confirming that election until the courts got to hear their arguments. That's in the history books.

The Texas lawsuit wasn't heard at the time because the courts claimed Texas didn't have standing. Not because they didn't have facts. Those cases are still dragging through the courts, 6 years later.

Look up Texas vs Pennsylvania (et al). Then dispute the claims. You can't. They're true.