Politics

Judge Blocks Trump’s Voter ID Rule: How This Ruling Impacts Election Integrity

Judge blocks Trump’s voter ID rule, siding with Democrats. The court cited the separation of powers.

November 1, 2025, 10:46 AM

A diverse group of American citizens, including a man in the foreground, cast their votes at booths on Election Day.

Multicultural American citizens casting their ballots in polling booths during a national election. By Frame Stock Footage / Shutterstock.com.

Executive Summary

A federal judge ruled President Donald Trump cannot enforce a requirement for documentary proof of citizenship on federal voter registration forms, deeming it an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers.

The ruling emphasizes that the Constitution assigns responsibility for election regulation to the states and Congress, not the President, who has “no direct role” in setting voting qualifications.

The decision grants partial summary judgment, permanently barring the U.S. Election Assistance Commission from adding the proof-of-citizenship requirement, and is part of ongoing legal challenges to Trump’s election-related executive order.

The Story So Far

The federal judge’s ruling against President Trump’s requirement for documentary proof of citizenship on the federal voter registration form stems from a March executive order by the Trump administration aimed at overhauling U.S. elections. The decision underscores the constitutional principle that election regulation is assigned to states and Congress, not the President. This directive is part of a broader, long-standing Republican priority for proof-of-citizenship requirements, which proponents argue are essential to prevent non-citizen voting, despite critics pointing to the rarity of such voting and the significant hurdles these mandates create for eligible citizens.

Why This Matters

This federal court ruling, which blocks President Trump’s requirement for documentary proof of citizenship on federal voter registration forms, is a significant judicial affirmation of the separation of powers, underscoring that election regulation falls to states and Congress, not the executive. The decision prevents a mandate that has historically created substantial hurdles and confusion for eligible voters, thus safeguarding voter access and potentially influencing ongoing legal battles over election procedures.

Who Thinks What?

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ruled that President Trump cannot enforce a documentary proof of citizenship requirement on federal voter registration forms, deeming it an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers, as the President has no direct role in setting voting qualifications.

Democratic and civil rights groups, including the ACLU, hailed the ruling as a “clear victory for our democracy,” characterizing Trump’s attempt as an “unconstitutional power grab” that creates significant hurdles for eligible voters while pointing out that noncitizen voting is rare.

Republicans and the Trump administration argue that documentary proof of citizenship is essential to ensure only American citizens vote in U.S. elections.

A federal judge ruled Friday that President Donald Trump cannot enforce a requirement for documentary proof of citizenship on the federal voter registration form. U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in Washington, D.C., sided with Democratic and civil rights groups, deeming the directive an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers.

The ruling stems from a lawsuit challenging a March executive order by the Trump administration aimed at overhauling U.S. elections. Judge Kollar-Kotelly asserted that the Constitution assigns responsibility for election regulation to the states and Congress, not the President.

Judicial Rationale and Immediate Impact

In her opinion, Kollar-Kotelly emphasized that the President has “no direct role” in setting qualifications for voting or regulating federal election procedures. This decision grants a partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs, permanently barring the U.S. Election Assistance Commission from adding the proof-of-citizenship requirement to the federal voter form.

Sophia Lin Lakin of the ACLU, one of the plaintiffs, hailed the ruling as “a clear victory for our democracy,” characterizing Trump’s attempt as an “unconstitutional power grab.” The White House did not immediately return a request for comment regarding the decision.

Broader Context of Voter ID Debates

The push for documentary proof-of-citizenship requirements has been a priority for Republicans, who argue it is essential to ensure only American citizens vote in U.S. elections. However, such efforts have frequently encountered legal and practical challenges.

A citizenship mandate passed by the U.S. House stalled in the Senate earlier this year, and similar legislation has struggled to pass at the state level. These requirements have historically created significant hurdles and confusion for voters, particularly for married women who have changed their names and may need to present multiple official documents.

Past Complications and Ongoing Legal Battles

Previous implementations of proof-of-citizenship requirements have led to widespread issues. In New Hampshire, local elections earlier this year saw complications arise, while in Kansas, a three-year requirement prevented approximately 30,000 otherwise eligible individuals from registering to vote before it was ultimately overturned in federal court.

Critics of these mandates also point to evidence suggesting that voting by noncitizens is rare. The lawsuit initiated by the Democratic National Committee and various civil rights groups will continue, addressing other challenges to Trump’s executive order, including a requirement for mailed ballots to be received, rather than just postmarked, by Election Day. Several other lawsuits against the election executive order also remain ongoing, including those from 19 Democratic state attorneys general and separate actions by Washington and Oregon.