January 31, 2026

While much of the legal and political world was consumed by the latest release of the Epstein Files and the arrest of journalist Don Lemon, a case with far-reaching consequences for American democracy was quietly decided in Washington, D.C. In a ruling that could significantly shape the 2026 elections, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly struck down key portions of an executive order Donald Trump issued last year purporting to govern voting rules for future federal elections.

At first glance, the case appeared narrow. The specific provisions at issue applied primarily to a limited category of voters who cast so-called “federal-only” ballots. But focusing on the scope of the plaintiffs misses the larger point.

The court’s reasoning — and the constitutional principles it reaffirmed — is a serious blow to Trump’s long-stated ambition to dictate how elections are run and how votes are counted in 2026. Indeed, taken to its logical conclusion, the decision would exclude Trump entirely from any role in setting or enforcing federal election rules.

The lawsuit was filed by the Democratic Party and several allied organizations challenging Trump’s executive order, which imposed new “proof of citizenship” requirements on voters registering for federal elections and on those applying to vote by absentee ballot. The judge agreed with the Democratic Party — holding that the executive order overstepped constitutional bounds.

In blocking the challenged provisions, the court held that the Constitution’s separation of powers leaves “no role at all to the President” when it comes to establishing the rules that govern federal elections. As the opinion explained bluntly, “Put simply, our Constitution does not allow the President to impose unilateral changes to federal election procedures.”

That holding alone represents a significant victory for voting rights. But its importance extends far beyond the immediate dispute.

The decision offers a clear roadmap for courts confronting similar attempts by Trump to interfere with election administration. If the president truly has “no role” in setting, interpreting or altering election rules, then Trump’s capacity to disenfranchise voters or invalidate ballots for failing to comply with his preferred standards will be sharply limited.

This ruling is at odds with how Trump and his Department of Justice have articulated presidential power over elections. Just last summer, Trump asserted that “the States are merely an ‘agent’ for the Federal Government in counting and tabulating the votes,” and that, as president, he possessed ultimate authority to direct how those votes are handled.

Under Trump’s view, state election officials function not as independent constitutional actors, but as subordinates required to carry out presidential commands. At the time, I wrote that this theory was dangerously wrong and flatly contradicted the plain text of the Constitution’s Elections Clause, which assigns responsibility for election administration to the states and Congress — not the president.

This opinion goes even further. Rather than relying solely on the Elections Clause, the court grounded its decision in the broader and more fundamental principle of separation of powers, making clear that Trump’s theory of presidential control over elections violates the basic structure of the Constitution itself.

Despite the importance of this ruling, it would be a mistake to view it as the end of the story. This is almost certainly just the opening battle in a much larger conflict over Trump’s efforts to dominate and subvert the 2026 elections.

The Department of Justice is virtually certain to appeal, and if it fails before the Court of Appeals, the administration will almost certainly seek Supreme Court review.

Even a favorable outcome at the high court would not guarantee the end of Trump’s interference. Courts can declare that the president lacks authority to set election rules, but they cannot ensure that he will respect those limits.

It may be beyond Trump’s power to establish rules for which ballots count, but as recent events in Georgia demonstrated, Trump is willing to escalate his attacks on democracy.  Preventing him from raiding election offices to seize ballots will pose both legal and logistical challenges.

All of this underscores the fact that the fight ahead will be long and hard. The threat to free and fair elections is the challenge of our generation, and no one court decision will solve every problem.

But while we should not become complacent, we must also take time to savor our victories. So, as you contemplate the challenges we face in the next 10 months, take a few moments to celebrate this win and hope for many more in the future.

Now, here's a little joy from a pawtner in the opposition.