by Cliff Montgomery – Sept. 21st, 2025
Back in March, Trump attempted to rewrite several election laws via his preferred method of bypassing democratic oversight, an executive order. The federal courts began passing injunctions that pause a number of the order’s provisions, for one very solid reason: The president has no authority to change election laws. The states and the U.S. Congress may change those laws, but not the person occupying the White House.
For the last few days, The American Spark has looked at a short, informative study released a few days ago by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
Tonight, we end our look at Trump’s executive order by letting the CRS report tell us about the pending legal challenges and issues that Congress should consider.
A few day ago, the Spark offered quotes from the CRS study that discussed the laws Trump is interested in changing. On Friday, the Spark provided quotes from the study that gave a detailed run-down of what is found in the executive order.
Below, the Spark offers tonight’s quotes from the report, discussing the order’s legal challenges:
LULAC v. Executive Office of the President
“In cases consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, non-profit and Democratic Party organizations and elected officials challenged EO 14248. In separate motions, the nonprofit and Democratic Party plaintiffs sought preliminary injunctions requesting to block Sections 2(a), 2(b), 2(d), and 7 of the EO. On April 24, the district court granted in part a preliminary injunction, pausing Sections 2(a) and 2(d) of the EO, and denied the injunction with respect to 2(b), 7(a), and 7(b).
“As a general matter, the court observed that the U.S. Constitution reserves the power to regulate federal elections invoked by the EO to Congress and the states, not the President. Therefore, the court concluded that it was likely that the plaintiffs would succeed on the merits of their complaint that the EO unlawfully usurped authority over elections, as the EO’s provisions could be most plausibly read as orders and not suggestions.
“With regard to Section 2(a), which directed the EAC to implement a documentary proof of citizenship requirement on the Federal Form, the plaintiffs argued that ‘neither the Constitution nor [federal election law] grants the President the authority to direct the EAC to change the content of the Federal Form.’
“The court agreed that the EO’s provision was essentially ultra vires, or outside the President’s authority, and granted a preliminary injunction on the implementation of this section. Observing an ‘absence of any clear grant of authority,’ the court held that the President’s power is ‘ “at its lowest ebb” ’ (quoting Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (Jackson, J., concurring)), because the order to add such a requirement to the Federal Form is ‘contrary to the manifest will of Congress, as expressed in the text, structure, and context of the NVRA and HAVA.’
“The court also enjoined the enforcement of Section 2(d) of the EO, which required that federal voter registration agencies assess citizenship prior to providing federal voter registration forms to enrollees of public assistance programs. The court held that that the EO’s instruction to agencies to ‘assess citizenship’ before providing the Federal Form is irreconcilable with the NVRA’s requirement that covered federal agencies shall provide the Federal Form to each voter who receives their services unless the voter declines in writing.
“The court agreed with the plaintiffs that this statutory mandate from Congress leaves no discretion to federal agencies to assess citizenship before providing the form.
“Finding that all of the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their challenges to Section 2(a) and the Democratic Party plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their challenge to Section 2(d), the court further held that the plaintiffs were also likely to suffer irreparable harm without relief, that the balance of equities tipped in their favor, and that an injunction against implementation of both sections was in the public interest.
“Accordingly, the court issued an injunction blocking the EAC from implementing Section 2(a) and blocking the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and the Interior, together with the U.S. Small Business Administration—agencies designated by certain states as ‘federal voter registration agencies’—from implementing Section 2(d).
“Regarding 2(b), 7(a), and 7(b), the district court did not reach the merits of the factors for injunction, instead denying injunctive relief based on the threshold argument that the plaintiffs lacked standing. According to the court, ‘[o]n the present record, challenges to those provisions are premature or properly presented not by these plaintiffs but by the States themselves.’
“The court further acknowledged that state plaintiffs have already brought challenges to these and other provisions of the EO, which are discussed below. Since the April order, the plaintiffs in LULAC have filed motions for partial summary judgment on their claims regarding Section 2(a).
State Challenges
“In addition to the LULAC litigation, nineteen state plaintiffs filed a similar challenge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in State of California v. Trump. The Massachusetts district court agreed with the LULAC decision that Sections 2(a) and 2(d) addressing new citizenship documentation requirements for registration were likely outside the President’s power to impose.
“With regard to Section 7, the court found that the states had standing to challenge the provisions (unlike the plaintiffs in LULAC) and agreed with prior cases that the text of the Election Day statutes require only that all votes are cast by Election Day, not that they are received by that date.
The court further noted that, ‘[e]ven if the Election Day statutes could be read to bar states from counting ballots received after Election Day, they do not authorize the President to enforce those statutes’ via civil and criminal enforcement actions; although the court acknowledged there are other actions the executive branch could take to encourage this interpretation, such as sending letters to the plaintiff states promoting the President’s interpretation of the statutes.
“The state plaintiffs also challenged Section 3(d), which mandates the Secretary of Defense to require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship and eligibility for members of the military and other U.S. citizens living abroad. The Massachusetts district court held that the provision appeared to contradict the will of Congress in the Uniform Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act and that ‘neither the Constitution nor any statute grants the President the authority to enact’ such a requirement.
“Accordingly, on June 13, 2025, the Massachusetts district court issued a preliminary injunction blocking the implementation of Sections 2(a), 2(d), 3(d), 7(a), and 7(b).
“Washington and Oregon separately challenged the EO in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in State of Washington v. Trump. The state plaintiffs have filed a motion for partial summary judgment arguing that certain provisions of the EO (including Section 4, regarding the EAC’s denial of federal election funding to states that do not comply) are outside the President’s authority. Judgment on the motion is still pending.
Considerations for Congress
“In LULAC, the federal district court reflected that the ‘Constitution entrusts Congress and the States—not the President—with the authority to regulate federal elections’ and that Congress is currently debating legislation that ‘would effect many of the changes’ of the EO.
“In light of the district court injunctions and constitutional challenges to unilateral executive branch action in U.S. elections, Congress may consider passing similar reforms in statute that might be less likely to be overturned in a federal court.
“For example, H.R. 22, the SAVE Act, would amend the NVRA to require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections, among other reforms. The House passed the SAVE Act on April 10, 2025, and the companion bill, S.128, has been introduced in the Senate.
“Alternatively, if Congress seeks to act, Congress may consider legislation expanding voting methods that are not uniformly available under state laws, such as early voting and mail-in voting. Stemming from its authority under the Elections Clause, it seems likely that Congress could broaden or otherwise modify the types of methods and documentation required for voter registration in federal elections.
“In that same vein, Congress may also amend the authorities underlying the EAC. Use of voting systems that conform to the EAC’s Voluntary Voting System Guidelines is currently voluntary under federal law, although states have incorporated such requirements into their own state laws. Additional information on the EAC and actions by the commission related to the EO may be found here.”
