A federal judge in Washington just slammed the brakes on another attempt by President Trump to tighten election integrity rules, and the decision says far more about the courts than it does about the Constitution. On January 30, 2026, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly permanently blocked additional provisions of President Trump’s March 2025 executive order aimed at requiring proof of U.S. citizenship for certain voter registration processes.
The executive order, titled “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections,” was signed on March 25 and focused on something most Americans consider basic common sense, verifying that people registering to vote in federal elections are actually U.S. citizens. According to Kollar Kotelly, however, that crosses a constitutional line when it comes from the Oval Office instead of Congress.
This ruling builds on earlier injunctions in the same case and effectively guts the heart of the order. The blocked provisions would have required documentary proof of citizenship on federal voter registration forms and related absentee ballot applications. In her opinion, the judge argued that the Elections Clause gives authority over federal election procedures to Congress and the states, not the president.
“The Constitution does not allow the President to impose unilateral changes to federal election procedures,” she wrote, permanently enjoining the administration from enforcing those sections of the order.
The lawsuits were brought by Democratic organizations and left wing civil rights groups, who claimed the order was an unconstitutional power grab and would suppress voters. That claim ignores the obvious, citizenship is a legal requirement for voting in federal elections. Asking for proof of something already required by law should not be controversial, but in today’s political climate, it always is.
What makes this ruling especially frustrating is that it does not say proof of citizenship is wrong or unnecessary. It simply says the wrong person tried to require it. In other words, if Congress had passed the exact same requirement, the legal argument would look very different. That distinction might thrill constitutional lawyers, but it does nothing to reassure voters who want clean elections.
President Trump’s order came after years of public concern over election integrity, inconsistent registration standards, and the refusal of some states to even attempt basic verification. The administration argued that uniform citizenship checks were necessary to protect confidence in elections. Judge Kollar Kotelly’s ruling does not dispute that concern, it just walls it off behind procedural barriers.
This is the familiar pattern. When the executive branch tries to act where Congress refuses to move, courts step in to say not like that. Meanwhile, Congress continues to do nothing, and the underlying problem remains unresolved. The left celebrates the injunction as a win for democracy, even though it leaves a system in place that many Americans simply do not trust.
The decision is a legal victory for the plaintiffs and a setback for President Trump, but it is not the final word on election integrity. Congress still has the power to act if it chooses. Whether it will is another matter entirely.
For now, the message from the court is clear. Ensuring that only citizens vote may be important, but unless Washington’s political class agrees on how to do it, the status quo stays right where it is. And that, more than any executive order, is what continues to erode confidence in the system.