Trump’s executive order mandating proof of citizenship to vote blocked by federal judge after flurry of legal setbacks

New York Post - Apr 25th, 2025

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has blocked parts of an executive order by President Donald Trump requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ruled that two provisions of the March 25 order, which sought to amend national voter registration forms and require federal agencies to assess citizenship status, exceeded presidential authority. The decision came after lawsuits from various groups challenged five provisions of the order, with the judge allowing three provisions to stand. The ruling highlights the constitutional allocation of power to Congress and the states to regulate federal elections, pointing out that Congress is already debating related legislation.

This decision is part of a broader legal pushback against Trump’s executive orders, with other federal judges blocking his attempts to end diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in public schools. These rulings underscore ongoing national debates over voting rights and education policies. The blocked provisions align with Republican-led initiatives requiring citizenship proof for voting, which remain contentious as multiple states consider such legislation. The rulings could have significant implications for federal election regulations and educational funding tied to DEI programs, underscoring the judiciary's role in interpreting presidential overreach.

Trump Diversity, Equity, And Inclusion National Education Association American Civil Liberties Union Executive Order Voting Rights U.S. District Court Election Integrity Judge Colleen Kollar Kotelly Voter Citizenship Proof

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.8

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a well-rounded and accurate account of a federal judge's decision to block parts of President Trump's executive order on election integrity. It effectively explains the legal basis for the ruling and its implications for voter registration laws. The piece is timely and addresses issues of significant public interest, such as voting rights and the balance of power between government branches. While the article is clear and engaging, it could benefit from a broader range of perspectives and more detailed source attribution to enhance its credibility and depth. Overall, the article is a reliable source of information on this important legal and political development.

Accuracy

The article accurately reports on a federal judge's decision to block parts of President Trump's executive order concerning proof of citizenship for voter registration. The judge's ruling is correctly attributed to Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, and the legal basis for her decision is well-explained, citing constitutional authority over federal elections. The article mentions the involvement of three groups of plaintiffs and accurately describes the provisions blocked and those not blocked. However, the article could improve by providing more detailed citations or direct quotes from the court documents or official statements to enhance verifiability.

Balance

The article presents a balanced view by detailing both the judge's decision and the legislative efforts by the Republican-led House to require proof of citizenship. It also mentions the involvement of various groups challenging the executive order. However, the article could benefit from including perspectives from the Trump administration or supporters of the executive order to provide a more complete view of the issue.

Clarity

The article is well-structured and uses clear language, making the complex legal issues accessible to a general audience. It logically presents the sequence of events and the implications of the judge's ruling. However, the inclusion of more direct quotes or detailed explanations could enhance comprehension.

Source quality

The article cites credible sources, such as the judge's ruling and the involvement of the American Civil Liberties Union. However, it lacks direct quotes or detailed attributions from primary sources like court documents or official statements from the involved parties. This could enhance the reliability and depth of the reporting.

Transparency

The article provides a clear explanation of the judge's decision and the legal context. However, it does not disclose the methodology used to gather information or potential conflicts of interest. Greater transparency about the sources of information and the article's development process could improve readers' understanding of the report's basis.