A federal court in Washington, D.C. has permanently struck down a key part of former President Donald Trump’s executive order that sought to compel voters to present passports or similar documents as proof of citizenship before casting their ballots.
U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly delivered the ruling, declaring that the president had no constitutional authority to impose such a requirement, as the power to regulate elections rests with the states, not the executive branch.
The March 25 directive, one of Trump’s most sweeping attempts to reshape federal election procedures, had already been put on hold by several courts. Friday’s judgment, however, marks the first permanent blow to the order, ensuring that the citizenship-proof mandate will not take effect.
The case was brought by multiple groups, including the Democratic National Committee, the League of United Latin American Citizens, and the League of Women Voters Education Fund. Representing the latter, the American Civil Liberties Union celebrated the decision as a safeguard for democratic access.
“Americans should never have to buy a passport to exercise their right to vote,” said Sophia Lin Lakin of the ACLU. “No president can rewrite the Constitution to make it harder for people to participate in elections.”
The blocked provision would have required the federal election commission to alter the national voter registration form, mandating proof of citizenship — such as a passport — for voter registration.
While Kollar-Kotelly declined to halt another section of the order that prevents states from counting mail ballots received after Election Day, her ruling on the citizenship requirement is seen as a landmark affirmation of state authority and voter rights.
Trump, who continues to repeat false claims of mass voter fraud in the 2020 election, has argued that the order was necessary to preserve electoral integrity. Critics, however, viewed it as an effort to suppress turnout among eligible voters lacking passports or costly documentation.
The White House has not yet issued a comment on the ruling.
