A federal judge in Washington, D.C., on Friday halted key sections of President Donald Trump’s sweeping executive order purporting to unilaterally change the rules regarding how federal elections are run, finding that the plaintiffs in the case were “substantially likely to prevail” on the merits.

In a 120-page order, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued a preliminary injunction blocking the president’s measure that would require amending the national voter registration form to require proof of U.S. citizenship as well as a provision ordering federal agencies to “assess the citizenship” of individuals who receive public assistance before they are provided a voter registration form.

Kollar-Kotelly, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, wrote that allowing those measures to be implemented would cause “irreparable harm” to the plaintiffs and “would not be in the public interest.”

“Our Constitution entrusts Congress and the States — not the President — with the authority to regulate federal elections,” the order states. “Consistent with that allocation of power, Congress is currently debating legislation that would effect many of the changes the President purports to order. And no statutory delegation of authority to the Executive Branch permits the President to short-circuit Congress’s deliberative process by executive order.”

The court noted that the legislation in Congress is the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility [SAVE] Act, a Republican-backed measure critics have said could potentially disenfranchise millions of eligible voters. Many provisions of the SAVE Act are encompassed by Trump’s executive order.

The first election official convicted of a felony over 2020 election conspiracy theories promulgated by followers of Donald Trump is appealing an earlier contempt of court ruling in a related case.

Tina Peters, 68, is the former county clerk of Mesa County, Colorado. In August, she was convicted on seven counts of engaging in a security breach — related to unauthorized access to voting machines. In October, after a marathon hearing in which the defendant repeatedly expressed defiance and stuck to her theories, she was sentenced to nine years in state prison for those felony offenses.

While sitting in the gallery during a February 2022 hearing for one of her alleged co-conspirators, Peters allegedly used an iPad to record some of the proceedings. In May 2023, she was found guilty of contempt for that decidedly lesser charge — and fined $1,500.

In June, Peters appealed her contempt citation, with the state filing its reply brief the following month. This week, Peters’ attorney John Case appeared before a three-judge panel of the Colorado Court of Appeals.

Special counsel Jack Smith filed court documents on Monday to dismiss the criminal election interference case against President-elect Donald Trump before he takes office in January, citing long-standing Justice Department policy prohibiting the indictment and prosecution of a sitting president. The request was subsequently granted by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan just a few hours after Smith’s filing, meaning the charges stemming from Trump’s alleged attempt to undermine the 2020 election on Jan. 6 are over.

While the dismissal was inevitable, Smith requested that the case against Trump be dismissed “without prejudice,” meaning there would be nothing barring prosecutors from bringing the same charges again in the future.

In her order granting the request, Chutkan wrote that “dismissal without prejudice is appropriate here,” noting that Trump’s presidential immunity from prosecution will not be permanent.

“Dismissal without prejudice is also consistent with the Government’s understanding that the immunity afforded to a sitting President is temporary, expiring when they leave office,” Chutkan wrote.

Legal regulatory authorities in Wisconsin on Tuesday filed a disciplinary complaint against a former state supreme court justice who criticized the Badger State’s 2020 election procedures.

Michael Gableman, a Republican, was hired by Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, also a Republican, in 2021 to lead one of many investigations into the integrity of the 2020 presidential election and provide recommendations for how to make future elections better.

In the end, Gableman was unceremoniously sacked by Vos himself after calling for the elected official’s ouster in a primary challenge – and because his investigation, while sporting a hefty price tag, found “absolutely no evidence” of voter fraud and produced little of value.

“Here, I guess what we found out from this long and tortuous road is that at least for the first part of this investigation, there was no actual work being done,” then-Dane County judge Valerie Bailey–Rihn said during a hearing in July 2022. “The taxpayers are paying $11,000 for somebody to sit in a New Berlin library to learn about election law because they had no experience in election law.”

Defamed election workers in Georgia are still brawling with Rudy Giuliani in court as they attempt to collect as much of their $148 million judgment as possible in property, including $2 million in “never paid” legal fees stemming from Giuliani’s ill-fated 2020 election lawyering for Donald Trump and his campaign.

Lead plaintiff Ruby Freeman and her daughter Shaye Moss in August asked a federal court to order Giuliani to “turn over personal property in his possession” and to appoint them as “receivers with the power to take possession of, and sell, both real and personal property that Mr. Giuliani does not turn over,” like his New York apartment and his Florida condo.

The presiding judge in Georgia’s election interference case over the 2020 presidential election has rejected Rudy Giuliani’s request for more time to file pretrial motions.

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee on Friday denied the former New York City Mayor’s motion for an “indefinite extension” of the court’s motions deadline, reasoning that his attorneys failed to provide any reason as to why they had been unable to get through the discovery materials provided in the case.

“The Defendant moves for an indefinite extension of the January 8th motions deadline citing
his incomplete review of voluminous discovery,” McAfee wrote in the 1-page order. “Defendant does not articulate exactly what discovery must still be reviewed, or why the review has not been completed in the approximately four months that have passed since arraignment.”

The presiding judge also took aim at Giuliani’s counsel, alleging that they made a false claim about the previously filed motion in their request for an extension.

“While defendant claims to have filed ‘many’ motions concerning discovery, none appear on the docket, McAfee wrote. “Extensions are only considered upon filing of a particularized motion containing a detailed, fact-based explanation of the need for the extension including the amount of time needed. The motion is DENIED. All deadlines remain in place.”

Giuliani’s 14 co-defendants in the case include high-profile names such as former President Donald Trump, former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, and “coup memo” author John Eastman. They have all entered pleas of not guilty.