On the Same Day Trump Held a Housing Bill Hostage for a Voter-ID Law, a Judge Permanently Struck Down His Voter-ID Executive Order — Ruling He Has No Power Over Elections At All

On June 24, 2026 — the same day Trump canceled the signing of a bipartisan housing bill to pressure Congress into passing his SAVE America Act voter-ID law — U.S. District Judge Denise Casper in Boston permanently struck down most of his elections executive order, including its requirement that Americans show documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote. In a 59-page ruling converting her year-old preliminary injunction into a permanent one, Casper held that the Constitution "does not grant the President any specific powers over elections," that authority belongs to the states and Congress, and that the order violated separation of powers. She also found the Justice Department "failed to demonstrate the alleged fraud" used to justify the order, and that the policy "would have disenfranchised thousands." The case was brought by 19 states. It is the latest in a string of defeats: three separate federal judges have now blocked the 2025 order. The ruling lays bare the futility loop Trump is in — courts say he can't do it by executive order, so he's trying to do it by legislation (the SAVE Act), which can't get 60 votes in the Senate, which is why he's now holding popular bills hostage to force it through. Noncitizen voting is already a felony and is vanishingly rare; the federal registration form already requires attesting to citizenship under penalty of prison or deportation.

It was a remarkable split-screen. On June 24, 2026, Trump canceled the signing of a wildly popular bipartisan housing bill to force Congress to pass his proof-of-citizenship voting law. The same day, a federal judge permanently struck down his attempt to impose that exact same requirement by executive order — and ruled that he has no constitutional authority over elections in the first place.

The ruling

U.S. District Judge Denise Casper in Boston issued a 59-page ruling permanently barring the administration from implementing most of Trump's first elections executive order. It converts the preliminary injunction she issued a year ago into a permanent ban, on largely the same legal basis.

The order she struck down would have:

Required people to provide documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote
Blocked mail ballots from being counted if they arrived after Election Day — even if postmarked on time
Withheld federal money from states that refused to comply

The constitutional holding

Casper's central finding goes straight to the heart of presidential power:

"While the Constitution vests the President with 'executive Power' and commands him to 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,' it does not grant the President any specific powers over elections."

The Constitution, she held, assigns the regulation of elections to the states and Congress — not the president. Trump's order therefore violated the separation of powers.

She went further on the factual pretext:

The Department of Justice "failed to demonstrate the alleged fraud" that supposedly justified the order
The policy "would have disenfranchised thousands"
She rejected the administration's argument that the suit was premature because the rules weren't yet in effect

The case was brought by 19 states, led by Democratic attorneys general with California as lead plaintiff.

The futility loop

Stack this ruling next to the same day's events and the trap Trump has built for himself becomes clear:

Trump tries to require proof of citizenship by executive order
Courts block it — three separate federal judges have now ruled against the 2025 order, and Casper just made hers permanent
So Trump pivots to doing it by legislation — the SAVE America Act
The SAVE Act passed the House but cannot get 60 votes in the Senate
So Trump demands Thune abolish the filibuster (refused) and starts holding hostages — canceling the DNI hearing, letting FISA lapse, and canceling the housing bill signing
None of it produces the votes the SAVE Act lacks, and the courts have now told him the executive-order shortcut is unconstitutional

Every path is blocked, and the president's response to each blockage is to escalate against an unrelated target — surveillance, housing — none of which moves him closer to the goal.

The problem that isn't a problem

The entire effort rests on a premise the court found unsupported. Noncitizen voting in federal elections:

Is already illegal
Is vanishingly rare
Is already guarded against — the federal voter registration form already requires applicants to attest, under penalty of law, that they are U.S. citizens
Carries penalties of prison or deportation for those who lie

The judge specifically found the DOJ could not demonstrate the fraud it claimed to be solving.

The reactions

New York AG Letitia James: grateful the court blocked Trump's "unconstitutional attempt to seize control of our elections."

California AG Rob Bonta: the ruling reaffirms that election rules are set by states and Congress — but "we are clear-eyed that President Trump's attacks on voting rights and our elections show no signs of slowing down."

Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar: the ruling is "an important reminder to our president that he does not administer our elections."

What comes next

The fight is not over. Trump has since signed a second elections executive order — to build a national voter list and limit mail balloting — which faces its own legal challenges. And the Supreme Court is due to rule soon on whether mail ballots must arrive by Election Day, a decision that could immediately change the rules in the 14 states that count postmarked-by-Election-Day ballots.

But the core message of this ruling is hard to escape: a court has told the president, in writing, that the Constitution gives him no power over elections — on the very day he was tearing up a bipartisan housing victory to try to seize that power a different way.