NEW YORK (AP) — In a recent court ruling in Washington, DC, a federal judge blocked certain changes proposed by the Trump administration regarding federal elections. At the center of the dispute was the administration’s push to add a proof-of-citizenship requirement to the federal voter registration form. While some aspects of Trump’s executive order were allowed to proceed, such as tightening mail ballot deadlines, the judge’s decision marked a setback for the President’s efforts to reform election procedures.

The legal battle unfolded in response to a March executive order issued by President Trump, which aimed to revamp the administration of U.S. elections. Prompted by concerns about the order’s constitutionality, voting rights groups, including the League of United Latin American Citizens and the League of Women Voters Education Fund, filed lawsuits challenging its validity. In a detailed 120-page decision, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly emphasized that the power to regulate federal elections rests with states and Congress, not the president.

One of the key points of contention was the mandate for a proof-of-citizenship requirement on the federal voter registration form. Plaintiffs argued that such a requirement would cause harm and go against the public interest. While the judge granted a preliminary injunction to halt the citizenship provision, she also blocked a section of the executive order related to assessing citizenship for public assistance enrollees before registering to vote.

The courtroom drama reflected a broader debate over the balance of power in election administration. By asserting authority over an independent agency responsible for maintaining the federal voter registration form, Trump’s order raised concerns about potential overreach. The ruling was praised by advocates for its defense of democracy and the rule of law, while critics expressed disappointment and vowed to continue challenging the administration’s initiatives in court.

As state and local election officials gathered to assess the implications of the executive order, the legal battle over election procedures continued to unfold. While the decision marked a victory for some groups, the broader implications of the ruling and ongoing lawsuits underscored the complexities of election administration in the United States.