On January 13, 2026, a federal judge ruled against key provisions of President Donald Trump’s executive order intended to revise election rules across the United States. This ruling marks the third judicial rejection of the order, affirming that the Constitution grants states and Congress, rather than the president, the authority to govern elections.

The executive order, issued in March, sought to mandate proof of citizenship for federal voter registration, limit the use of machine-readable codes in ballot counting, and prevent the counting of ballots postmarked by Election Day but received afterward. The Trump administration has indicated plans to appeal this latest decision, which represents a significant setback for its election agenda. Legal experts suggest that the president faces considerable challenges in these appeals, with the potential for the cases to escalate to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Derek Clinger, a senior staff attorney at the University of Wisconsin Law School’s State Democracy Research Initiative, noted that the court's ruling clearly indicates that the president lacks the constitutional authority to implement these changes. The White House has also called for congressional action to amend federal election laws, but such efforts have stalled, with some states, like Ohio, moving to eliminate grace periods for mail ballots.

In previous rulings related to the executive order, federal judges invalidated requirements for documentary proof of citizenship for voters using the federal registration form and mandated assessments of citizenship for individuals receiving public assistance.

U.S. District Judge John Chun, who issued the latest ruling, sided with the states of Oregon and Washington, emphasizing the need to maintain a balance of power among the Executive Branch, states, and Congress as envisioned by the Framers of the Constitution. His decision specifically blocked provisions that would have required proof of citizenship on federal voter registration forms and restricted the processing of absentee ballots arriving after Election Day.

While the executive order has not achieved its intended goals, it has influenced federal agency actions, with the U.S. Department of Justice filing lawsuits against states for not providing unredacted voter data, citing the executive order as a basis for these actions. Justin Levitt, an election law professor, characterized the Trump administration's approach to election policy as lacking a coherent strategy, suggesting that it aims to project power without a clear plan for implementation.