President Donald Trump’s initiative to reform election procedures through an executive order faced its first legal obstacle on Monday, March 31, 2025. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) and multiple nonprofit organizations initiated lawsuits challenging its constitutionality.
The initial legal action was filed by the Campaign Legal Center and the State Democracy Defenders Fund in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia last week. Shortly thereafter, the DNC, the Democratic Governors Association, and Democratic leaders from the Senate and House submitted their own lawsuit in the same court.
Both lawsuits aim to prevent Trump’s executive order from being implemented, arguing it is unconstitutional as it infringes upon the Constitution’s Elections Clause. This clause assigns the responsibility of determining the “times, places and manner” of elections to states, not the president.
“The president’s executive order is an unlawful action that threatens to uproot our tried-and-tested election systems and silence potentially millions of Americans,” stated Danielle Lang, senior director of voting rights at the Campaign Legal Center. She emphasized that it is beyond the president’s power to establish election rules by executive order, especially when these rules could limit voting access.
The executive order, signed on March 25, requires documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration, sets new deadlines for mail-in ballots, and directs the Department of Homeland Security to assist states in verifying voter eligibility. Additionally, it instructs the attorney general to prioritize enforcement of laws that prevent non-citizens from voting.
Legal experts have expressed concerns that various parts of the order may conflict with the U.S. Constitution. The order also asserts control over the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, an independent agency that establishes voluntary voting system guidelines and oversees the federal voter registration form.
Both legal filings emphasize that while the Constitution allows Congress to “make or alter” election regulations for federal offices, it does not grant the president authority over election administration. The challenges argue that the order represents an unconstitutional extension of executive power into areas reserved for states and Congress.
“The Constitution is clear: States set their own rules of the road when it comes to elections, and only Congress has the power to override these laws with respect to federal elections,” Lang stated.
The nonprofit organizations’ lawsuit identifies three voter advocacy groups as plaintiffs negatively impacted by the executive order: the League of United Latin American Citizens, the Secure Families Initiative, and the Arizona Students’ Association.
The DNC’s lawsuit also questions the involvement of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a contentious entity focused on reducing government costs. Democrats argue that the order’s directive for DOGE to cross-reference federal data with state voter lists infringes on privacy rights and increases the risk of voter harassment “based on false suspicions that they are not qualified to vote.”
In a statement, the DNC and other Democratic plaintiffs described the order as “an unconstitutional power grab from Donald Trump that attacks vote by mail, gives DOGE sensitive personal information and makes it harder for states to run their own free and fair elections.”
Trump has defended the executive order as a necessary measure to secure elections against illegal voting by non-citizens. However, numerous studies and investigations in individual states have demonstrated that non-citizens voting in federal elections—already a federal felony—is an extremely rare occurrence.
If the courts uphold the order, it could create significant challenges for election administrators and voters. State election officials would need to dedicate time and resources to comply with the new requirements, which may include acquiring new voting systems and educating voters about the changes.
The proof-of-citizenship requirement is particularly controversial, as millions of eligible voting-age Americans lack readily available documentation. When Kansas implemented a similar requirement for three years before it was overturned, the state’s own expert estimated that nearly all of the approximately 30,000 people prevented from registering to vote during that time were actually U.S. citizens eligible to vote.
Further legal challenges may be forthcoming. The American Civil Liberties Union and other voting rights advocates have indicated they are considering legal action. Several Democratic state attorneys general have also stated they are reviewing the order and believe it may be illegal.
Meanwhile, Republican officials in some states have praised the order, suggesting it could help prevent voter fraud and provide them with federal data to better maintain their voter rolls.
Congress is also considering legislation that would codify a proof-of-citizenship requirement for voter registration into law. Trump has signaled additional election-related actions in the coming weeks.
These lawsuits are the latest in a series of legal challenges to executive actions taken during the initial months of Trump’s second term. Federal judges have partially or fully blocked many previous orders, including attempts to restrict birthright citizenship, ban transgender individuals from military service, and limit diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives among federal contractors and grant recipients.
The courts will now decide whether this executive order falls within presidential authority or represents an unconstitutional attempt to regulate elections—a power that plaintiffs argue is reserved solely for states and Congress under the Constitution.
