Judge blocks Trump’s election executive order, siding with Democrats who called it overreach

ATLANTA (AP) — A federal judge on Friday blocked President Donald Trump’s attempt to overhaul elections in the U.S., siding with a group of Democratic state attorneys general who challenged the effort as unconstitutional.

The Republican president’s March 25 executive order sought to compel officials to require documentary proof of citizenship for everyone registering to vote for federal elections, accept only mailed ballots received by Election Day and condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the new ballot deadline.

The attorneys general had argued the directive “usurps the States’ constitutional power and seeks to amend election law by fiat.” The White House had defended the order as “standing up for free, fair and honest elections” and called proof of citizenship a “commonsense” requirement.

Judge Denise J. Casper of the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts said in Friday's order that the states had a likelihood of success as to their legal challenges.

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

Casper also noted that, when it comes to citizenship, “there is no dispute (nor could there be) that U.S. citizenship is required to vote in federal elections and the federal voter registration forms require attestation of citizenship.”

Casper also cited arguments made by the states that the requirements would “burden the States with significant efforts and substantial costs” to update procedures.

Messages seeking a response from the White House and the Department of Justice were not immediately returned. The attorneys general for California and New York praised the ruling in statements to The Associated Press, calling Trump's order unconstitutional.

“Free and fair elections are the foundation of this nation, and no president has the power to steal that right from the American people," New York Attorney General Letitia James said.

The ruling is the second legal setback for Trump’s election order. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., previously blocked parts of the directive, including the proof-of-citizenship requirement for the federal voter registration form.

The order is the culmination of Trump’s longstanding complaints about elections. After his first win in 2016, Trump falsely claimed his popular vote total would have been much higher if not for “millions of people who voted illegally.” Since 2020, Trump has made false claims of widespread voter fraud and manipulation of voting machines to explain his loss to Democrat Joe Biden.

He has said his executive order secures elections against illegal voting by noncitizens, though multiple studies and investigations in the states have shown that it's rare and typically a mistake. Casting a ballot as a noncitizen is already against the law and can result in fines and deportation if convicted.

Also blocked in Friday's ruling was part of the order that sought to require states to exclude any mail-in or absentee ballots received after Election Day. Currently, 18 states and Puerto Rico accept mailed ballots received after Election Day as long they are postmarked on or before that date, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Oregon and Washington, which conduct their elections almost entirely by mail, filed a separate lawsuit over the ballot deadline, saying the executive order could disenfranchise voters in their states. When the lawsuit was filed, Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs noted that more than 300,000 ballots in the state arrived after Election Day in 2024.

Trump’s order has received praise from the top election officials in some Republican states who say it could inhibit instances of voter fraud and will give them access to federal data to better maintain their voter rolls. But many legal experts say the order exceeds Trump’s power because the Constitution gives states the authority to set the “times, places and manner” of elections, with Congress allowed to set rules for elections to federal office. As Friday's ruling states, the Constitution makes no provision for presidents to set the rules for elections.

During a hearing earlier this month on the states’ request for a preliminary injunction, lawyers for the states and lawyers for the administration argued over the implications of Trump’s order, whether the changes could be made in time for next year’s midterm elections and how much it would cost the states.

Justice Department lawyer Bridget O’Hickey said during the hearing that the order seeks to provide a single set of rules for certain aspects of election operations rather than having a patchwork of state laws and that any harm to the states is speculation.

O’Hickey also claimed that mailed ballots received after Election Day might somehow be manipulated, suggesting people could retrieve their ballots and alter their votes based on what they see in early results. But all ballots received after Election Day require a postmark showing they were sent on or before that date, and that any ballot with a postmark after Election Day would not count.

New York attorney general Letitia James is seen after the New York City Democratic Mayoral Primary Debate at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in the Gerald W. Lynch Theater on Thursday, June 12, 2025 in New York City. (Vincent Alban/The New York Times via AP, Pool)

FILE - President Donald Trump walks across the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, March 25, 2018. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, File)

President Donald Trump speaks during the congressional picnic on the South Lawn of the White House, Thursday, June 12, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

DETROIT (AP) — Sixteen states and the District of Columbia are suing the Trump administration for what they say is the unlawful withholding of over $2 billion in funding for two electric vehicle charging programs.

A federal lawsuit filed Tuesday in Seattle is the latest legal battle that Democratic-led states are pursuing over funding for EV charging infrastructure that they say was obligated to them by Congress under former President Joe Biden, but that the Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration are “impounding.”

“The Trump administration’s illegal attempt to stop funding for electric vehicle infrastructure must come to an end,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a release. “This is just another reckless attempt that will stall the fight against air pollution and climate change, slow innovation, thwart green job creation, and leave communities without access to clean, affordable transportation."

President Donald Trump's administration has been hostile to EVs and has dismantled several Biden-era policies friendly to cleaner cars and trucks in favor of policies that align with Trump’s oil and gas industry agenda.

Transportation Department officials did not immediately respond to request for comment.

The Trump administration in February ordered states to halt spending money for EV charging that was allocated in the bipartisan infrastructure law passed under the previous administration.

Several states filed a lawsuit in May against the administration for withholding the funding from the $5 billion National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program for a nationwide charging buildout. A federal judge later ordered the administration to release much of the funding for chargers in more than a dozen states.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy later issued revised guidance intended to streamline funding applications for states and make charger deployment more efficient. At least four states — Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, and Wisconsin — have announced awards under the vehicle infrastructure program, according to Loren McDonald, chief analyst at EV data firm Chargeonomics, who tracks the state awards.

Tuesday's separate lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, addresses withholding of funds for two other programs: $1.8 billion for the Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Grant program, as well as about $350 million for the Electric Vehicle Charger Reliability and Accessibility Accelerator program.

The lawsuit is led by attorneys general from California and Colorado, joined by the attorneys general of Arizona, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia, and the governor of Pennsylvania. All are Democrats.

After returning to office in January, Trump immediately ordered an end to what he has called Biden's “EV mandate.” While Biden targeted for half of new vehicle sales in the U.S. to be electric by 2030, his policies did not force American consumers to buy EVs or automakers to sell them.

Biden did set stringent tailpipe emissions and fuel economy rules in an effort to encourage more widespread EV adoption, as the auto industry would have had to meet both sets of requirements with a greater number of EVs in their sales mix. Under the Biden administration, consumers could also receive up to $7,500 in tax incentives off the price of an EV purchase, a program that congressional Republicans ended last fall.

The Trump administration has proposed rolling back both tailpipe emissions rules and the gas mileage standards and eliminated fines to automakers for not meeting those standards.

Trump has also repeated incorrect information about the status of the federal charging programs; without all of the funds available, only a fraction of what was obligated has been spent so far.

“We had to have an electric car within a very short period of time, even though there was no way of charging them and lots of other things,” Trump said in a Dec. 3 press conference about the proposed weakened fuel economy rules. “In certain parts of the Midwest, they spent -- to build nine chargers they spent $8 billion. So, that wasn’t working out too well.”

The lawsuit comes amid those regulatory changes and as the pace of EV sales have slowed in the U.S. as mainstream buyers remain concerned about both charging availability and the price of the vehicles.

New EVs sold for an average of $58,638 last month, compared with $49,814 for a new vehicle overall, according to auto buying resource Kelley Blue Book.

Automakers, meanwhile, have responded to consumers accordingly.

Earlier this week, Ford Motor Co. announced it was pivoting away from its once-ambitious, multi-billion dollar electrification strategy in lieu of more hybrid-electric and more fuel-efficient gasoline-powered vehicles.

In the spring, Honda Motor Co. also said it would take a significant step back from its EV efforts.

Associated Press writer Matthew Daly in Washington contributed to this report.

Alexa St. John is an Associated Press climate reporter. Follow her on X: @alexa_stjohn. Reach her at ast.john@ap.org.

Read more of AP’s climate coverage.

The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy speaks during a news conference at the Department of Transportation in Washington, Friday, Dec. 12, 2025. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)