Judge Blocks Key Parts of Trump’s 2025 Elections Executive Order

A federal judge in Massachusetts has permanently blocked key parts of President Donald Trump’s March 2025 elections executive order, ruling that the challenged provisions exceeded presidential authority and unlawfully intruded on powers reserved to the states and Congress.

The practical effect is to stop the federal government from enforcing some of the order’s most consequential election changes, including requiring documentary proof of citizenship for the federal mail voter registration form, changing the federal postcard application used by military and overseas voters, pressuring some states to reject mail ballots that arrive after Election Day, and conditioning certain federal election-related funding on states adopting those rules.

In a Memorandum and Order issued June 24, Chief U.S. District Judge Denise J. Casper of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted in part the plaintiff states’ motion for summary judgment in State of California, et al. v. Donald Trump, et al., No. 25-cv-10810-DJC. The lawsuit was brought by a 19-state coalition led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford. The states are California, Nevada, Massachusetts, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin.

Casper wrote that Sections 2(a), 3(d), 4(a), 7(a) and 7(b) of Executive Order No. 14248 are “unconstitutional and void because they are ultra vires and violate the separation of powers.” In plain terms, the court said the president acted beyond his legal authority. “Our Constitution vests control over federal elections in the States,” Casper wrote, underscoring the ruling’s core point that election administration is mainly handled by states under rules set by Congress, not by unilateral presidential order.

The injunction bars federal defendants — but not Trump personally — from implementing or enforcing Section 2(a), which sought documentary proof of citizenship for the federal mail registration form, and Section 3(d), which would have altered the federal postcard application to require documentary proof of citizenship or state-specific eligibility information. It also blocks enforcement of Sections 7(a) and 7(b) against the so-called Ballot Receipt States, the states that count ballots cast by Election Day even if they arrive shortly afterward.

Casper also permanently enjoined Section 4(a) against the plaintiff states except Wisconsin, blocking the federal government from conditioning formula-grant funding, including election security grants, on states adopting documentary proof-of-citizenship rules. The ruling does not amount to a complete shutdown of every part of the executive order, and some of the relief is tailored to particular states.

The states sued on April 3, 2025, shortly after Trump signed the order on March 25, 2025. Casper issued a preliminary injunction on June 13, 2025, then denied the administration’s motion to dismiss on Sept. 17, 2025. The court heard argument on permanent relief in February before issuing this week’s ruling.

In a statement Wednesday, Bonta said, “We sued President Trump over his attempt to unilaterally impose voting restrictions across the country — and we won.”

The Massachusetts decision is part of a broader legal fight over the March 2025 order. Other federal courts, including in Washington, D.C., and Washington state, had already blocked overlapping portions of the same order.

One issue remains unresolved. Casper directed the parties to confer and file a status report by July 10 on a remaining question involving Section 7(b) and states that are not Ballot Receipt States.