Judge Who Blocked Trump's Voter Suppression Order Gets Kicked Off New Case After DOJ Complaint

The Trump administration just got a do-over in its ongoing campaign to seize control of American elections from the states.

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly -- the same judge who blocked Trump's previous anti-voting executive order in March 2025 -- ruled Wednesday that she must step aside from hearing challenges to his new voter suppression diktat. The decision came after Department of Justice lawyers complained that the case shouldn't have been assigned to her in the first place.

The ruling is a significant procedural win for an administration that has repeatedly tried to override state control of elections, a power explicitly granted to states and Congress by the Constitution.

How We Got Here

When voting rights groups and Democratic plaintiffs filed lawsuits challenging Trump's latest executive order, the federal court initially steered the consolidated cases to Kollar-Kotelly. The logic was straightforward: she had already presided over challenges to Trump's March 2025 anti-voting order and ruled that the president has no authority to dictate election rules.

That earlier order tried to impose sweeping new requirements on voter registration. Kollar-Kotelly blocked it, finding Trump was attempting to usurp powers the Constitution reserves for states and Congress.

With the same judge assigned to hear challenges to the new order, voting rights advocates expected a similarly swift rebuke.

But DOJ lawyers argued the cases should follow normal random assignment procedures instead of being directed to Kollar-Kotelly. And on Wednesday, she agreed with them.

Why the Judge Stepped Aside

In her ruling, Kollar-Kotelly explained that the new lawsuits don't qualify as continuations of the earlier case for two key reasons.

First, the March 2025 case is already finished at the trial court level and is now on appeal. That means it can't be used to keep new cases with the same judge under court rules.

Second, Trump's new executive order is substantively different from the previous one -- even if both target voting rights. The earlier order focused on voter registration requirements. The new one would create a federal database to verify voters' citizenship and impose new restrictions on mail-in voting.

Those differences, Kollar-Kotelly wrote, mean the cases must be randomly reassigned rather than automatically staying with her.

What Trump's New Order Does

The executive order at the center of this fight would fundamentally reshape how Americans vote by centralizing control in federal hands.

It directs the creation of a federal database to verify voter citizenship -- a system voting rights groups warn could disenfranchise eligible voters through errors and outdated records. It also imposes new federal rules on mail-in voting, a method millions of Americans rely on to cast ballots.

Voting rights advocates argue these changes would make it harder for eligible Americans to vote while solving a problem -- widespread noncitizen voting -- that doesn't exist. Study after study has found that noncitizen voting is vanishingly rare, with rates well below one percent.

More fundamentally, the order represents another attempt by Trump to claim powers the Constitution doesn't give him. Multiple courts have now ruled that election administration is a state and congressional function, not a presidential one.

What Happens Next

The consolidated lawsuits will now be randomly reassigned to a different federal judge. That introduces uncertainty about how quickly the cases will move and what the outcome might be.

However, voting rights groups have reason for cautious optimism. Several courts have already established clear precedent that the Constitution gives control over elections to states and Congress -- not the president. Kollar-Kotelly's earlier ruling blocking Trump's March order relied on that well-established principle.

Any judge assigned to hear the new challenges will be bound by the same constitutional framework. The question is whether they'll move as quickly as Kollar-Kotelly did to block Trump's overreach.

The cases are being brought by Democratic plaintiffs represented by the Elias Law Group and pro-voting organizations. They argue Trump's order violates both the Constitution's allocation of election powers and federal voting rights laws.

The Bigger Picture

This legal fight is part of a broader pattern of Trump attempting to centralize power and override democratic safeguards. From dismantling independent agencies to bypassing Congress with executive orders, the administration has repeatedly tested the limits of presidential authority.

The fight over election control is particularly dangerous because it strikes at the foundation of American democracy. If a president can unilaterally impose new voting rules, the independence of elections -- and the ability of voters to hold leaders accountable -- disappears.

That's why multiple courts have now rejected Trump's claims to election authority. The Constitution is clear: states run elections, Congress sets federal election rules, and the president enforces those laws. He doesn't get to write new ones.

Whether the newly assigned judge will move quickly to block this latest power grab remains to be seen. But the legal precedent is already established -- Trump has no authority to do what he's attempting.

The only question is how long it will take the courts to tell him so again.