NEW YORK (AP) — In a significant legal decision, a federal judge has ruled against President Donald Trump’s attempt to mandate documentary proof of citizenship on the federal voter registration form.

Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, presiding in Washington, D.C., sided with Democratic and civil rights organizations that challenged the Trump administration’s executive order aimed at revamping U.S. election processes.

The judge declared that the requirement for proof of citizenship is unconstitutional, citing it as a breach of the separation of powers. This ruling is a setback for the administration and its supporters, who argued that such measures were essential to ensuring that only U.S. citizens cast ballots in elections.

“The Constitution delegates the responsibility for election regulation to the States and Congress,” Kollar-Kotelly stated in her judgment. “Therefore, the President does not possess the authority to dictate these changes.”

She also underscored that the Constitution assigns no specific role to the President concerning setting voter qualifications or regulating federal election procedures.

Judge Kollar-Kotelly reiterated her stance from when she initially issued a preliminary injunction on the matter.

The ruling grants the plaintiffs a partial summary judgment that prohibits the proof-of-citizenship requirement from going into effect. It says the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, which has been considering adding the requirement to the federal voter form, is permanently barred from taking action to do so.

In a statement, Sophia Lin Lakin of the ACLU, one of the plaintiffs in the case, called the ruling “a clear victory for our democracy. President Trump’s attempt to impose a documentary proof of citizenship requirement on the federal voter registration form is an unconstitutional power grab.”

The White House disagreed with the judge’s ruling in a statement late Friday.

“President Trump has exercised his lawful authority to ensure only American citizens are casting ballots in American elections,” said Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson. “This is so commonsense that only the Democrat Party would file a lawsuit against it. We expect to be vindicated by a higher court.”

While a top priority for Republicans, attempts to implement documentary proof-of-citizenship requirements for voting have been fraught. The U.S. House passed a citizenship mandate last spring that has stalled in the Senate, and several attempts to pass similar legislation in the states have proved equally difficult.

Such requirements have created problems and confusion for voters when they have taken effect at the state level. It presents particular hurdles for married women who have changed their name, since they might need to show birth certificates and marriage certificates as well as state IDs. Those complications arose earlier this year when a proof-of-citizenship requirement took effect for the first time during local elections in New Hampshire.

In Kansas, a proof-of-citizenship requirement that was in effect for three years created chaos before it was overturned in federal court. Some 30,000 otherwise eligible people were prevented from registering to vote.

Voting by noncitizens also has been shown to be rare.

The lawsuit brought by the DNC and various civil rights groups will continue to play out to allow the judge to consider other challenges to Trump’s order. That includes a requirement that all mailed ballots be received, rather than just postmarked, by Election Day.

Other lawsuits against Trump’s election executive order are ongoing.

In early April, 19 Democratic state attorneys general asked a separate federal court to reject Trump’s executive order. Washington and Oregon, where virtually all voting is done with mailed ballots, followed with their own lawsuit against the order.

___

Riccardi reported from Denver.