Fact Check: On June 13, 2025, District Judge Denise Casper ruled against provisions in President Donald Trump’s anti-voting executive order, stating that they would likely disenfranchise eligible voters.

Fact Check: "On June 13, 2025, District Judge Denise Casper ruled against provisions in President Donald Trump’s anti-voting executive order, stating that they would likely disenfranchise eligible voters."

What We Know

On June 13, 2025, U.S. District Judge Denise Casper ruled against several provisions of President Donald Trump's executive order concerning voting. This order included a requirement for individuals to provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote and aimed to restrict mail-in ballots that were postmarked by Election Day but received later. Judge Casper's ruling indicated that these provisions likely exceeded the president's authority and could potentially disenfranchise eligible voters (NPR, CNN). The judge stated that the Constitution grants states the power to regulate their elections, not the president, and emphasized that the provisions could create chaos and hinder voter participation (NPR, Politico).

Analysis

The claim that Judge Casper ruled against provisions in Trump's executive order on the grounds that they would likely disenfranchise eligible voters is accurate in essence but lacks specificity. The judge's ruling did not explicitly state that the provisions would "likely disenfranchise eligible voters" in those exact words. Instead, her decision was based on the broader implications of the executive order, which she believed could lead to disenfranchisement due to the burdensome requirements imposed on voters (New York Times, Democracy Docket).

The sources used in this analysis are credible, including mainstream news outlets like NPR and CNN, which reported on the ruling with direct quotes from the judge and context surrounding the case. The NPR article provides a comprehensive overview of the ruling and its implications, while the New York Times and Politico articles corroborate the details of the decision and its legal context (NPR, New York Times, Politico).

However, it is important to note that while the ruling did block certain provisions of the executive order, the specific language regarding disenfranchisement was not quoted directly in the ruling itself, which could lead to misinterpretation of the judge's intent (NPR, CNN).

Conclusion

Verdict: False
The claim that Judge Denise Casper ruled against provisions in Trump's executive order specifically stating they would "likely disenfranchise eligible voters" is misleading. While the judge's ruling did highlight concerns about potential disenfranchisement due to the burdensome nature of the provisions, the exact phrasing used in the claim does not accurately reflect the language of the ruling. The judge's decision was more about the overreach of presidential authority and the constitutional rights of states to regulate elections rather than a direct statement on disenfranchisement.

Sources

1. united states district court
2. Trump Administration Live Updates: Judge Blocks Executive Order ...
3. A 2nd judge halts more of Trump's voting executive order - NPR
4. Judge Blocks Trump Voting Order Requiring Proof of ...
5. Second judge blocks most of Trump's executive order on elections
6. Second judge blocks portions of Trump's executive order seeking to ...
7. Federal Judge Blocks Trump's Anti-Voting Decree, Says it ...
8. Federal judge blocks Trump executive order that requires proof of US ...