Trump Admin Files Notice of Appeal of Ruling That Blocked Parts of Election Order

A judge had ruled that only Congress could create or adjust rules around state elections.

A voter casts a vote on Super Tuesday at Pulaski Heights United Methodist Church in Little Rock, Arkansas, on March 5, 2024. Will Newton/Getty Images

The Trump administration on Thursday appealed a federal judge’s ruling that blocked portions of a March executive order that would require federal and local officials to mandate documentary proof of American citizenship to vote in elections.

In a notice of appeal, attorneys for President Donald Trump said the administration would appeal the order handed down by Massachusetts District Judge Denise Casper in June that blocked enforcement of multiple provisions of an executive order to “enforce basic and necessary election protections” seen in other countries.

Casper wrote that the Trump administration doesn’t have the authority to issue such an order, responding to a complaint filed by a coalition of Democratic-led states that came soon after Trump signed the order.

Her ruling blocked parts of the order that directed federal and local authorities to mandate documentary proof of citizenship when people register to vote. The White House said that the mandate is needed in order to preserve and protect how U.S. elections are carried out, noting that similar requirements are implemented in other countries such as Brazil or India.

“The States have shown the risk of irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction,” the judge said in her June order.

“The challenged sections of the Executive Order would burden the States with significant efforts and substantial costs to revamp voter registration procedures and would impede the registration of eligible voters, many of whom lack ready access to documentary evidence of citizenship.”

Casper wrote that it is only Congress that can create or adjust rules around state elections.

The Legislature, she wrote, “has done so through its enactment of the National Voter Registration Act and other laws.”

The Trump administration “cannot point to any source of authority for the President to impose” the new push under the executive order, Casper said.

“The Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections,” she added.

The order came as the Supreme Court decided, in an unrelated case, that judges are limited in granting nationwide injunctions. Trump administration lawyers, in several cases, have pointed to the high court ruling in arguing that those judges should narrow their orders in certain cases.

In a later order, Casper amended her order to apply only to the 19 Democratic-led states that filed the complaint.

While the executive order would implement “several significant changes to federal elections law and practice,” the states wrote in their complaint that it would lead to “punitive funding conditions and investigatory threats” on behalf of the federal government.

“The President’s constitutional role in elections is limited to competing in them and enforcing election laws enacted by Congress,” the complaint also said.

“President Trump and his administration cannot bypass the ordinary legislative process to legislate by fiat.”

Lawyers for the government wrote in a response brief that the executive order doesn’t alter federal statutes and doesn’t violate the Constitution.

“The Executive has interpreted the law for centuries—this is nothing new, and certainly nothing constitutionally objectionable. But, in any event, the President’s interpretation of those laws accords with their text, purpose, and history, and he has the authority to interpret for the Executive Branch what they require,” they wrote.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.