January 9, 2026
Federal judge blocks Trump order on citizenship proof to vote
President lacks authority to impose voter registration and ballot deadline rules on states
January 9, 2026
President lacks authority to impose voter registration and ballot deadline rules on states
A federal judge on Jan. 10, 2026, blocked Trump's March 25, 2025, executive order on elections in Washington and Oregon. The order would have required citizens to provide documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote and mandated all mail ballots be received by Election Day. U.S. District Judge John H. Chun in Seattle found the requirements exceeded the president's authority and violated separation of powers. It's at least the third judicial defeat for Trump's election order. Washington Attorney General Nick Brown called it "a huge victory for voters" and for the rule that only states and Congress can regulate elections, not the "Election Denier-in-Chief." A separate collection of 19 states filed a similar lawsuit in Massachusetts, which also resulted in a court block. Democratic and civil rights groups won a permanent injunction in a Washington, D.C., case in October 2025 blocking the proof-of-citizenship requirement. Trump issued the executive order on March 25, 2025, shortly after taking office. The administration argued it was ensuring election integrity and preventing non-citizen voting. But courts have consistently ruled the president lacks constitutional authority to unilaterally change federal election laws. Vote-by-mail states like Washington and Oregon argued the order would upend their entire election systems and disenfranchise eligible voters who can't quickly obtain documentary proof of citizenship.
A federal judge on Jan. 10, 2026, blocked Trump's executive order on elections in Washington and Oregon. U.S. District Judge John H. Chun in Seattle found that requiring documentary proof of citizenship and Election Day ballot receipt exceeded the president's authority. The ruling found the order violated separation of powers. It's at least the third court to block key provisions of Trump's election order.
Trump issued the executive order on March 25, 2025, shortly after taking office. Section 2(a) would have required citizens to provide documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote. The order also mandated that all mail ballots be received by Election Day to be counted. Both requirements conflicted with established state election procedures in Washington, Oregon, and dozens of other states.
Washington Attorney General Nick Brown said the ruling enforced 'the long-standing constitutional rule that only States and Congress can regulate elections, not the Election Denier-in-Chief.' Oregon joined Washington in filing the lawsuit. Both states operate primarily vote-by-mail systems that rely on grace periods for ballot receipt. The order would have upended their entire election infrastructure.
A federal judge in Massachusetts issued a similar ruling blocking Trump's order in a lawsuit brought by 19 states. That case also challenged the proof-of-citizenship and ballot receipt deadline requirements. Democratic and civil rights groups won a permanent injunction in October 2025 in a Washington, D.C., case blocking Section 2(a) on proof-of-citizenship requirements.
The D.C. permanent injunction came in a lawsuit brought by the Democratic National Committee, Democratic Governors Association, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries. The court ruled definitively that Trump lacks constitutional authority to unilaterally change federal election laws.
Washington and Oregon operate primarily vote-by-mail election systems. Washington automatically mails ballots to all registered voters. Oregon pioneered vote-by-mail in 1998 and now conducts all elections by mail. Both states count ballots postmarked by Election Day if received within specific grace periods. Trump's order would have forced both states to reject validly cast ballots arriving after Election Day.
The Trump administration argued the order was necessary to ensure election integrity and prevent non-citizen voting. Officials claimed documentary proof requirements would strengthen confidence in elections. But courts found no evidence of widespread non-citizen voting and determined the president lacks authority to impose registration requirements on states. The administration hasn't provided data supporting claims of significant non-citizen voting.
U.S. District Judge, Western District of Washington
Washington Attorney General
Oregon Secretary of State
Washington Secretary of State
White House Spokesperson
civic action
Contact your state attorney general to defend state authority over elections
If your state allows mail ballot grace periods or doesn't require documentary proof of citizenship, urge your AG to defend these policies from federal overreach.
Hi, I'm calling to urge [State] Attorney General to defend our state's authority over election administration.
Key points to mention:
Questions to ask:
Specific request: I want the AG to defend our state's constitutional authority to administer elections free from presidential interference.
Thank you.
civic action
Support election protection organizations challenging federal overreach
Organizations are litigating to protect state authority over elections and prevent voter suppression through federal executive orders.
Subject: Support for Litigation Against Federal Election Interference
Dear Brennan Center,
I'm writing to support your efforts to protect state authority over election administration and defend voting rights from federal executive overreach.
Key facts:
Request: How can I support your litigation defending the constitutional separation of powers in election administration?
Sincerely, [Your name and contact information]