Massachusetts judge blocks Trump's election executive order, siding with Democrats who called it overreach
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
'The Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections,' Casper wrote.
Advertisement
Casper also noted that, when it comes to citizenship, 'there is no dispute (nor could there be) that U.S. citizenship is required to vote in federal elections and the federal voter registration forms require attestation of citizenship.'
Casper cited arguments made by the states that the requirements would 'burden the States with significant efforts and substantial costs' to update procedures.
Messages seeking a response from the White House and Department of Justice were not immediately returned.
The ruling is the second legal setback for Trump's election order. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., previously blocked parts of the directive, including the proof-of-citizenship requirement for the federal voter registration form.
Advertisement
The order is the culmination of Trump's longstanding complaints about elections. After his first win in 2016, Trump falsely claimed his popular vote total would have been much higher if not for 'millions of people who voted illegally.' Since 2020, Trump has made false claims of widespread voter fraud and manipulation of voting machines to explain his loss to Democrat Joe Biden.
He has said his executive order secures elections against illegal voting by noncitizens, though multiple studies and investigations in the states have shown that it's rare and typically a mistake. Casting a ballot as a noncitizen is already against the law and can result in fines and deportation if convicted.
Also blocked in Friday's ruling was part of the order that sought to require states to exclude any mail-in or absentee ballots received after Election Day. Currently, 18 states and Puerto Rico accept mailed ballots received after Election Day as long they are postmarked on or before that date, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Oregon and Washington, which conduct their elections almost entirely by mail, filed a separate lawsuit over the ballot deadline, saying the executive order could disenfranchise voters in their states. When the lawsuit was filed, Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs noted that more than 300,000 ballots in the state arrived after Election Day in 2024.
Trump's order has received praise from the top election officials in some Republican states who say it could inhibit instances of voter fraud and will give them access to federal data to better maintain their voter rolls. But many legal experts say the order exceeds Trump's power because the Constitution gives states the authority to set the 'times, places and manner' of elections, with Congress allowed to set rules for elections to federal office. As Friday's ruling states, the Constitution makes no provision for presidents to set the rules for elections.
Advertisement
During a hearing earlier this month on the states' request for a preliminary injunction, lawyers for the states and lawyers for the administration argued over the implications of Trump's order, whether the changes could be made in time for next year's midterm elections and how much it would cost the states.
Justice Department lawyer Bridget O'Hickey said during the hearing that the order seeks to provide a single set of rules for certain aspects of election operations rather than having a patchwork of state laws and that any harm to the states is speculation.
O'Hickey also claimed that mailed ballots received after Election Day might somehow be manipulated, suggesting people could retrieve their ballots and alter their votes based on what they see in early results. But all ballots received after Election Day require a postmark showing they were sent on or before that date, and that any ballot with a postmark after Election Day would not count.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
20 minutes ago
- The Hill
Johnson: GOP will ‘defy history when we grow the majority in the House'
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said Wednesday that his party will 'defy history when we grow the majority in the House' in next year's midterm elections. 'We have a solid, hardworking Republican majority in the House right now — and the Senate — we're delivering for the people. And I'm very excited to go out and tell that story,' Johnson told CNN's Jake Tapper on 'The Lead.' 'I'm very excited about the midterm election. You know that we're going to defy history when we grow the majority in the House, because it's only twice in the last 90 years that a sitting president has picked up seats for his party in that first election cycle, but we're going to do it this time,' the Louisiana Republican added. While Republicans currently hold the House, Senate and White House, Democrats are gunning for the reins of power in the two chambers of Congress after devastating losses in last November's election. On Wednesday, Texas Republicans introduced a proposed group of fresh House lines, placing the party closer to snagging five seats next year. The new suggested map will likely mostly directly impact lawmakers situated close to or in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, Austin, Houston and near the southern border. Democratic strategist James Carville said in an interview earlier this month that President Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' is going to be seen as a 'mass extinction event,' predicting his party will gain over 40 House seats in the 2026 midterms. 'And I like the unified party — every Democrat voted against this. Every Democrat, regardless of the ideology, their ethnicity … we can all rally around this, and we can run on this single issue all the way to 2026. And Paul is right, we're going to pick up more than 40 House seats,' Carville said on CNN's 'Anderson Cooper 360.'
The Hill
20 minutes ago
- The Hill
Abortion shield laws are under fire
A total of 15 GOP attorneys general signed and sent a letter to congressional leadership this week requesting federal action be taken to preempt abortion shield laws, arguing they interfere with states' ability to enforce criminal laws. The group of attorneys general also argues that Congress should get involved with shield laws because they potentially conflict with two Constitutional clauses: the 'full faith and credit' clause and its extradition clause. Abortion shield laws are state laws meant to protect abortion providers and patients from civil and criminal actions. There are currently 18 states, along with the District of Columbia, that have an abortion shield law, according to Rachel Rebouche, dean of Temple University Beasley School of Law. Shield laws in eight of those states protect abortion providers regardless of patient location—acting as a safeguard for abortion providers who send medication via telehealth. The letter is the latest effort from Republican-led states to stop abortion pills from being shipped to parts of the country where the procedure is restricted. Signees include Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) and Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill (R), both of whom have taken legal action against a New York doctor for allegedly prescribing and mailing abortion pills to women in their respective states. Paxton sued the doctor—Margaret Carpenter—late last year for allegedly sending abortion pills to a patient in Texas, and a judge ordered her to pay more than $100,000 in penalties for violating the law. A grand jury in Louisiana indicted Carpenter for allegedly doing the same thing, leading to state authorities requesting she be extradited. New York Governor Kathy Hochul has repeatedly said that she will not allow Carpenter to ever be extradited, citing the state's shield law. And a New York county clerk has refused to enforce Texas's civil judgment, also citing the state's shield law. Separately, a Texas man is suing a California doctor for allegedly prescribing his girlfriend abortion medication. The lawsuit was filed in federal court, opening a new avenue for challenges to state shield laws, and could potentially give Republican-led states the win they want.
Boston Globe
20 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Trump's latest tariff deadline is approaching. Here are the trade deals the US has announced so far.
Advertisement But three months later, only two deals emerged: with the U.K. and Vietnam. A separate 'framework' for a deal was hashed out with China. And by early July, Trump began sending warning letters that higher tariffs would be imposed against dozens of countries on Aug. 1. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Since then, the U.S. has announced more trade frameworks. But, key details remain sparse — or not immediately captured in writing. Here's what we know about the agreements so far, in the order of those most recently announced. South Korea The U.S. president said he The countries have also agreed for South Korea to buy $100 billion in energy resources from the U.S. and for South Korea to give to the U.S. $350 billion for 'investments owned and controlled by the United States, and selected by myself, as president,' Trump said. Advertisement European Union The U.S. and the EU announced a trade framework But some key details require more work. The headline of the agreement, unveiled July 27, is that the 15% tariff rate will apply to 70% of European goods brought into the U.S. — with the EU later confirming that that rate applies to pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and car and car parts. But the remaining 30% of those imports is still open for negotiations. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said that both sides had agreed to zero tariffs for a range of 'strategic' goods. Meanwhile, Trump pointed to heightened investments from European companies in the U.S. — including what Trump said was $750 billion (638 billion euros) worth of natural gas, oil and nuclear fuel over three years, as well as an additional $600 billion (511 billion euros) under a political commitment that isn't legally binding, officials said. Japan On July 22, Trump announced a trade framework The newly-agreed on 15% tariff rate also applies to Japanese cars — marking a welcome relief for automakers like Toyota Motor Corp. and Honda — which, like other automakers, have faced a 25% levy on key parts and finished vehicles going into the U.S. since earlier this year. But car companies in other countries, including U.S. competitors, worry that this could put them at a disadvantage. Advertisement Philippines Shortly after a July 22 meeting with Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos, Jr., Trump announced that he would In return, Trump said on Truth Social, the U.S. would not pay tariffs on American goods it shipped to the Philippines. But additional details remained unclear. Marcos said his country was considering options such as having an open market without tariffs for U.S. automobiles, but emphasized details were still left to be worked out. Indonesia On July 15, Trump again took to social media to announce that he's agreed to lower his planned tariffs on Indonesian goods to 19% — down from a previously-threatened levy of 32% — while American goods sent to the southeast Asian country will face no tariffs. A fact sheet from the White House later confirmed that 'over 99% of U.S. products' exported to Indonesia would be sent duty-free. Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto said he will continue to negotiate with Trump, in hopes of further lowering the coming U.S. tariffs. Vietnam On July 2, Trump announced a trade deal with Vietnam that he said would allow U.S. goods to enter the country duty-free. Vietnamese exports to the U.S., by contrast, would face a 20% levy. That's less than half the 46% 'reciprocal' rate Trump proposed for Vietnamese goods back in April. But in addition to the new 20% tariff rate, Trump said the U.S. would impose a 40% tax on 'transshipping'' — targeting goods from another country that stop in Vietnam on their way to the United States. Washington complains that Chinese goods have been dodging higher U.S. tariffs by transiting through Vietnam. Advertisement United Kingdom On May 8, Trump When the deal was announced, for example, the British government notably said that the U.S. agreed to exempt the U.K. from its then-universal 25% duties on foreign steel and aluminum — which would have effectively allowed both metals from the country to come into the U.S. duty-free. But the timing for when those cuts would actually take effect stayed up in the air for almost a month. It wasn't until early June, when Trump hiked his steel and aluminum tariffs to a punishing 50% worldwide, that the U.S. acknowledged it was time to implement the agreement. And even then, U.S. tariffs on British steel and aluminum did not go to zero. The U.K. was the only country spared from Trump's new 50% levies, but still faces 25% import taxes on the metals. China At its peak, Trump's new tariffs on Chinese goods totaled 145% — and China's countertariffs on American products reached 125%. But on May 12, the countries agreed to their own 90-day truce to roll back those levies to 30% and 10%, respectively. And in June, details began trickling in about a tentative trade agreement. Advertisement U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that China had agreed to make it easier for American firms to acquire Chinese magnets and rare earth minerals critical for manufacturing and microchip production. Meanwhile, the Chinese Commerce Ministry said that the U.S. would 'lift a series of restrictive measures it had imposed on China.' Other key details of the deal remain murky — including the timing of implementation for these terms. On July 29, China's top trade official said the two sides had
