Is this true: "JUDGE PERMANENTLY BLOCKS TRUMP'S EXECUTIVE ORDER REQUIRING PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP TO VOTE"

1. What the ruling actually did — and did not — block

The decision by U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar‑Kotelly permanently blocked the executive‑order provision that would have required documentary proof of citizenship (e.g., a passport) on the federal voter registration form; outlets report the judge granted plaintiffs summary judgment on that point ^{[1] [3] [2]}. Reporting and plaintiff statements emphasize the order’s centerpiece — the so‑called “show‑your‑papers” requirement for registration — is the part the court struck down; other provisions of the March executive order have been separately litigated and remain the subject of additional suits ^{[3] [5]}.

2. The legal rationale cited by courts and experts

Coverage and legal groups say the court concluded the president lacks unilateral authority to force changes to federal voter‑registration procedures that Congress and the states control; the Brennan Center summarises that the president “can’t force” the Election Assistance Commission to alter the federal form and that statutory and constitutional limits bar adding a passport requirement ^[2]. Plaintiff organizations framed the decision as blocking an unconstitutional power grab that would unduly burden voting ^{[4] [6]}.

3. Who sued and why — the plaintiffs’ argument

The litigation was brought by a coalition including the League of Women Voters, the League of United Latin American Citizens, the Democratic National Committee and civil‑rights groups represented by the ACLU; they argued the order would disenfranchise millions who lack ready access to passports or other citizenship documents and that the executive branch overstepped its authority ^{[1] [4] [7]}. Advocacy groups warned the policy would disproportionately affect younger people, low‑income Americans, people of color and some women whose names have changed ^{[2] [4]}.

4. Administration response and competing perspectives

News outlets report the White House defended the proposal as a “commonsense” election‑integrity measure, and conservative outlets characterize the injunction as blocking an effort to protect ballots from noncitizen registration ^{[8] [9]}. Those supporting the administration’s view cite concerns about noncitizen registration; those opposing it point to statutory limits on what the federal registration form may ask and to practical burdens on eligible voters ^{[2] [4]}.

5. Broader implications for election law and executive power

Legal analysts and organizations like the Brennan Center read the decision as reinforcing the principle that election‑administration powers largely rest with Congress and states, not the president — a constraint that could limit future unilateral federal action on election rules ^[2]. Civil‑rights groups say the ruling prevents a policy that research shows could affect millions who do not hold passports or similar documents ^{[2] [4]}.

6. What remains unresolved and where reporting diverges

Reporting shows consensus that the documentary‑proof provision is blocked, but sources note other parts of the executive order are still being challenged in courts or under separate suits by states and plaintiffs ^{[3] [5]}. The New Yorker and other long‑form pieces place the order in a wider policy push on citizenship and birthright questions that have drawn additional litigation and might reach the Supreme Court; available sources do not give a single, final disposition for all related claims ^{[10] [2]}.

7. Practical effects for voters and election officials

Advocacy groups and the Brennan Center argue that had the requirement taken effect it would have placed “serious and unnecessary burdens” on eligible voters and local election administrators — because roughly half of Americans lack passports and many do not have other matching documentary proof — which was central to plaintiffs’ standing and the court’s concern ^{[2] [4]}. The ACLU and NAACP LDF framed the court outcome as protecting voters while litigation continues ^{[4] [11]}.

8. Bottom line for readers seeking to verify the headline

The headline claim — that a judge permanently blocked Trump’s executive‑order requirement that voters show proof of citizenship to register — is supported by multiple independent reports and plaintiffs’ statements: the documentary proof provision has been permanently blocked by the court ^{[1] [3] [6]}. Available sources do not say the ruling nullified every element of the broader executive order; litigation over other provisions remains active ^{[3] [5]}.