Judge Slaps Down Trump’s Voter Power

Gavel and scales in courtroom with blurred figures behind. — SHOCKING JUDICIAL REBUKE

A federal judge just told the President of the United States he has no power over who gets to register to vote — and that ruling may matter far more than the Senate vote that just killed the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act.

Story Snapshot

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued a permanent injunction blocking Trump’s proof-of-citizenship requirement for voter registration.
The court ruled that the Constitution gives election authority to Congress and the states — not the President.
The SAVE Act also failed in the Senate 48-50, with four Republicans joining all Democrats to defeat it.
Supporters cite polls showing 75-90% public backing for voter ID laws, while critics say noncitizen voting is already extremely rare and hard to document.

The Judge’s Ruling Draws a Hard Line on Presidential Power

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly did not split hairs. She ruled that President Trump lacks the authority to require proof of citizenship on the federal voter registration form.

Her words were direct: the Constitution gives responsibility for election rules to the states and Congress, not the executive branch. The court granted a permanent injunction and blocked the U.S. Election Assistance Commission from moving forward with the requirement.^[13]

BREAKING: A federal judge has permanently blocked the Trump administration from enforcing an executive order signed last year that required proof of citizenship to register to vote and demanded mail-in ballots be received by Election Day. https://t.co/I78dhdVBvz

— ABC News (@ABC) June 24, 2026

This ruling matters beyond the current political fight. It sets a boundary on what any president can do with a pen and an executive order when it comes to elections.

Whether you support the citizenship requirement or not, a court permanently blocking a sitting president from reshaping voter registration rules is a significant constitutional moment — one both parties should think hard about the next time their side holds the White House.

The Senate Vote Was Closer Than It Looked — and More Complicated

The SAVE Act failed in the Senate 48-50, falling well short of the 60 votes needed to clear a filibuster.^[1] Four Republicans — Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, and Thom Tillis of North Carolina — crossed party lines and voted no.

Collins said she would back a version requiring one-time proof of citizenship at registration, but not a rule forcing voters to re-prove citizenship every time they update their address or change their name.^[10]

Senator Kennedy Made the Case Loudly — the Numbers Did Not Cooperate

Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana forced a late-night vote on the SAVE Act during the Senate reconciliation debate. Kennedy argued plainly that foreign powers could send ineligible voters to cast ballots if no citizenship check exists.^[7] His concern is not crazy on its face.

But the vote count told a different story. Republicans could not even hold a simple majority, let alone reach 60. That is a problem for the argument that election integrity demands this law right now.

Proponents point to polling showing 75-90% of Americans across racial and party lines support voter ID laws.^[5] That number is striking.

But there is a gap between supporting the general idea of voter ID and supporting a law that requires an original birth certificate or a passport — which costs $130 — just to register. About 12% of registered voters currently lack the documents the SAVE Act would require, according to one analysis.^[25] That is not a small number of people.

The Noncitizen Voting Question Deserves a Straight Answer

The core argument for the SAVE Act rests on a real concern: noncitizens should not vote in American elections. That is not controversial. What is contested is how big the problem actually is.

Experts and multiple studies consistently find that noncitizen voting is extremely rare, and most cases involve honest mistakes rather than deliberate fraud.^[5] Existing law already makes it a federal crime for noncitizens to register or vote, and registrants must swear under penalty of perjury that they are eligible.

That said, the absence of confirmed large-scale fraud does not prove the system is airtight. California is currently blocking a federal audit of its voter rolls, which raises fair questions about what that audit might show.^[12]

Until that data is public, both sides are arguing from incomplete information. Common sense says transparency should win here. Let the audit happen. If noncitizen registration turns out to be negligible, that actually strengthens the case for a lighter-touch solution. If it is not negligible, that changes the entire debate.

What Actually Happens Next

The court ruling is the more durable obstacle for the Trump administration. A Senate vote can be retried. A permanent injunction requires an appeals court to overturn it, and ultimately the Supreme Court of the United States may need to weigh in.

The constitutional question — whether a president can unilaterally reshape voter registration rules — is one the high court has not fully settled. That answer, whenever it comes, will outlast this administration and the next one.