Fact Check: "In April 2025, District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ruled against several parts of Trump’s anti-voting order, stating it vastly exceeded the scope of the president’s constitutional powers."
What We Know
On April 24, 2025, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued a preliminary injunction against two significant provisions of an executive order from the Trump administration that sought to change federal voter registration procedures. The ruling was part of the case LULAC v. Executive Office of the President, which consolidated multiple lawsuits from civil rights organizations and the Democratic Party challenging the executive order's legality. The judge concluded that the president likely exceeded his constitutional authority in attempting to alter election law through executive action (WashU Expert, Reuters).
Judge Kollar-Kotelly's decision emphasized the importance of maintaining the constitutional separation of powers, stating that the president cannot unilaterally rewrite election law (NPR). While the court blocked two provisions, it allowed three others to remain in effect for the time being (Democracy Docket).
Analysis
The claim that Judge Kollar-Kotelly ruled against several parts of Trump's anti-voting order is accurate, as she did issue a ruling that blocked two major provisions of the executive order. However, the assertion that she stated the order "vastly exceeded" the president's powers is somewhat misleading. The judge indicated that the president "likely exceeded" his authority, which implies a legal interpretation rather than an absolute declaration of overreach (WashU Expert, Reuters).
The sources used in this analysis are credible, with the New York Times and Reuters being well-respected news organizations that adhere to journalistic standards. The WashU Expert article provides expert commentary from a law professor, which adds depth to the understanding of the ruling's implications. However, the Democracy Docket source, while informative, may have a bias towards a progressive viewpoint, as it focuses on the implications of the ruling for voting rights (Democracy Docket).
Conclusion
The claim is Partially True. Judge Kollar-Kotelly did rule against parts of Trump's executive order, finding that the president likely exceeded his constitutional authority. However, the language used in the claim suggests a stronger assertion of overreach than what was explicitly stated in the ruling. The judge's phrasing indicates a legal assessment rather than an unequivocal condemnation of the executive order's scope.
Sources
- WashU Expert: Federal court order a victory for rule of law
- Judge Blocks Trump Voting Order Requiring Proof of Citizenship
- Judge partly blocks Trump order that claimed greater authority over elections
- Judge pauses parts of Trump's executive order on voting
- Federal Judge Blocks Trump's Anti-Voting Decree, Says it Exceeds Authority
