Judge Bars Proof of Citizenship for Voting

[WEATHER53]

A federal judge blocked the Trump administration's effort to use a centralized database of Americans' personal information to purge voter rolls, ruling that the initiative unlawfully "trampled" on citizen privacy rights. [1, 2]

Court Rulings and Privacy Violations

• Database Injunction: U.S. District Court Judge Sparkle Sooknanan struck down the administration's expanded use of the SAVE (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements) program, which the administration overhauled to aggregate millions of Americans' sensitive data. [1, 2]
• Statutory Breaches: The judge found the system violated the federal Privacy Act, the Social Security Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The government bypassed public notice requirements and illegally shared Social Security numbers and related records. [1, 2]

You can’t use supposed privacy to continue and enlarge your illegal act(s)

 

[BlindBoo]

You're not a democrat? You sound like one most of the time.

Well I supported Jimmy Carter because of his stance on decriminalizing Cannabis, Energy Independence from the ME and developing alternative energy. Mostly the Almond Brothers Band......I never liked Clinton and Obama squander a near supermajority and almost immediately caved on a single payer plan. I never like Biden much over the years, he went along with all the rest in the war on Americans who use non-government approved recreational substances. But he surprised me when he coordinated NATO's response to Putin's aggression and help them halt the advance in it's tracks.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Great! Now republicans can acquire votes from countries around the world who identify with liberty and freedom. I’ll start by getting millions of Japanese to vote in my local town council elections.

Federal judge bars Trump from implementing proof of citizenship requirement to vote

A federal judge on Wednesday permanently barred President Donald Trump’s administration from implementing most of his first executive order on elections, part of which sought to require people to show...

www.yahoo.com

/—-/ As I just posted, the USSC ruled that judges decisions only applies to their district and not to the entire nation.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

As I just posted, the USSC ruled that judges decisions only applies to their district and not to the entire nation.

Which is 100% wrong. This ruling on an executive order applies to the executive order. Yes, everywhere.

 

[Dorian Mode]

Can we just get on with Civil War 2.0 already.
The Marxists are becoming increasingly emboldened.

Actually, they are getting really friggin' desperate, knowing their time is short, and that is emboldening them. To do what? they have been outplayed and have no ammo left except to die in a civil war. Anyone ever watch an arrogant beginner chess player play a grandmaster? That is what has happened. Ironically, the smartest people on the planet, with all their advanced degrees, have been completely outsmarted by one man they call stupid.

 

[OldFlame]

Well I supported Jimmy Carter because of his stance on decriminalizing Cannabis, Energy Independence from the ME and developing alternative energy. Mostly the Almond Brothers Band......I never liked Clinton and Obama squander a near supermajority and almost immediately caved on a single payer plan. I never like Biden much over the years, he went along with all the rest in the war on Americans who use non-government approved recreational substances. But he surprised me when he coordinated NATO's response to Putin's aggression and help them halt the advance in it's tracks.

I don't think Biden was personally responsible for much of anything during his tenure.

 

[Moonglow]

Lie

I'll bet you my unpaid Medicare bill to them for those two months before I turned 65, it's $665.00

 

[Moonglow]

You can’t use supposed privacy to continue and enlarge your illegal act(s)

My illegal acts do not enter into this thread.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Which is 100% wrong. This ruling on an executive order applies to the executive order. Yes, everywhere.

/----/ Say what?
The confusion surrounding how district court rulings affect Executive Orders (EOs) usually comes down to a misunderstanding of a major ruling from last term regarding "nationwide" or "universal" injunctions, as well as how judges are adapting their rulings right now.

---

1. The Core Ruling: The End of Nationwide Injunctions​

The Supreme Court established a massive procedural shift in Trump v. CASA (2025). In that 6–3 decision, the conservative majority explicitly ruled that federal district courts generally lack the authority to issue nationwide injunctions.

• The Rule: The Court held that a single district judge cannot issue a blanket order halting an executive policy everywhere in the country. Instead, any relief granted must be strictly limited to the specific plaintiffs or states involved in the actual lawsuit.
• The Legal Logic: The Court found that universal injunctions lack historical pedigree and exceed the powers granted under the Judiciary Act. Unless a formal, nationwide "class action" is certified, a judge's remedy cannot protect non-parties.

2. Today's Reality: The "Patchwork" Effect​

Because of that precedent, when a district judge blocks a Trump EO today, it does not apply universally across the country. Instead, it creates a localized or regional freeze.

A perfect example happened today with U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani's ruling in Boston, which blocked parts of Trump's executive order targeting state mail-in voting programs. Because of the Supreme Court's constraints on nationwide injunctions:

• The freeze on the EO only applies to the 23 states and the District of Columbia that actually joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs.
• In the rest of the country, the administration is legally free to continue implementing the executive order.

Summary​

If a district judge rules against a Trump EO today, they are not blocking it for the entire nation. They are blocking it only for the specific geographic areas, states, or individuals named in that specific case. To get a true nationwide halt or approval, the case must climb the ladder to a federal Appeals Court or the Supreme Court itself.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

/----/ Say what?
The confusion surrounding how district court rulings affect Executive Orders (EOs) usually comes down to a misunderstanding of a major ruling from last term regarding "nationwide" or "universal" injunctions, as well as how judges are adapting their rulings right now.

---

1. The Core Ruling: The End of Nationwide Injunctions​

The Supreme Court established a massive procedural shift in Trump v. CASA (2025). In that 6–3 decision, the conservative majority explicitly ruled that federal district courts generally lack the authority to issue nationwide injunctions.

• The Rule: The Court held that a single district judge cannot issue a blanket order halting an executive policy everywhere in the country. Instead, any relief granted must be strictly limited to the specific plaintiffs or states involved in the actual lawsuit.
• The Legal Logic: The Court found that universal injunctions lack historical pedigree and exceed the powers granted under the Judiciary Act. Unless a formal, nationwide "class action" is certified, a judge's remedy cannot protect non-parties.

2. Today's Reality: The "Patchwork" Effect​

Because of that precedent, when a district judge blocks a Trump EO today, it does not apply universally across the country. Instead, it creates a localized or regional freeze.

A perfect example happened today with U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani's ruling in Boston, which blocked parts of Trump's executive order targeting state mail-in voting programs. Because of the Supreme Court's constraints on nationwide injunctions:

• The freeze on the EO only applies to the 23 states and the District of Columbia that actually joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs.
• In the rest of the country, the administration is legally free to continue implementing the executive order.

Summary​

If a district judge rules against a Trump EO today, they are not blocking it for the entire nation. They are blocking it only for the specific geographic areas, states, or individuals named in that specific case. To get a true nationwide halt or approval, the case must climb the ladder to a federal Appeals Court or the Supreme Court itself.

But the national, uniform policy is now moot. So it's dead, in this case.

 

[Lisa558]

This country is developing a massive problem with ugly, Black female judges and mayors who ignore our laws.

Also black female prosecutors like Fani Willis and Luettecia James. They’ve put overweight, unattractive female blacks on such a high pedestal that they even erected a statue.

 

[Care4all]

No way it is unconstitutional. The Constitution limits voting to US citizens. How would trying to enforce that violate it, Dumbass?

The election offices should be vetting citizenship, vet they are 18 yrs age, vet that they are Not a felon, and vet whether they live in the voting district, for every new registrant BEFORE they approve the registration application.

 

[WEATHER53]

This is next in line to get corrected and undone

 

[Nostra]

Post them! Not a single one affected any election...

YOU ACCUSED democrats of allowing opened borders because they needed the hordes of illegal immigrants to vote for them in order to win....and falsely accused democrats of using this massive horde of illegals that Democrats organized to vote against Trump in 2020 and for Biden....

YOU AND YOUR ILK LIED LIKE YOUR MASTER IN HELL!

Your story is changing, Shirt Bus.


Happens every time you get caught lying.

 

[Nostra]

The Re-Authorization of the Civil Rights Act has several hundred documented pages of attempts to screw with voting.

Then there is Trump's new Saves act...

So you really never heard of Jim Crow?

Amazon.com

I have heard of the Dimwinger racist scheme to keep blacks down.

How does that apply to the topic, Short Bus?

 

[late]

I have heard of the Dimwinger racist scheme to keep blacks down.

How does that apply to the topic, Short Bus?

Learn English.

 

[BlindBoo]

The temporary injunction has been in place for a year. Why hasn't Benedict Donald's SC overruled her yet? They know she's right and the Executive branch cannot make new election laws with EO's