New Hampshire
Judge says state must make it easier to prove citizenship when registering to vote
CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — A federal judge has said that New Hampshire must make voter registration easier by allowing applicants to attest to their U.S. citizenship if they don’t have the documents to prove it.
The case was seen as the first major legal test of an election reform that has been pushed nationally by President Donald Trump and has gained favor among many Republicans, though U.S. District Court Judge Samantha Elliot said she was not deciding whether requiring proof of citizenship itself is constitutional. Her ruling late Thursday night on a narrower question of New Hampshire law was significant, however, because it underscored the potential perils of implementing strict requirements for voters to document their U.S. citizenship so they can cast a ballot.
Elliot found that changes in 2024 to the state voter registration law unconstitutionally removed one method of proof -- namely, a voter’s sworn affidavit attesting to citizenship.
The changes took effect last year, after former Gov. Chris Sununu, a Republican, signed the bill two years ago. The attorney general’s office said it plans to appeal the judge’s ruling, calling the citizenship requirements a “common-sense approach to voter registration and election administration designed to protect the integrity of our elections.”
The ruling was a win for the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire and other plaintiffs who argued that the changes that took effect last year were burdensome and unnecessary.
In her ruling, Elliott said eliminating the affidavit option created a significant burden for voters and did little, if anything, to further the state’s interests. She noted that an expert on voter fraud found only 47 instances of wrongful voting out of roughly 8.3 million votes between 1998 and 2024. During that time, only eight noncitizens may have cast ballots, she said.
The lawsuit, filed on behalf of the Coalition for Open Democracy, the League of Women Voters of New Hampshire, the Forward Foundation and five voters, called the state’s voter registration law one of the most restrictive in the nation. During town elections last fall, some voters had trouble gathering passports, birth certificates or other proof of citizenship.
New Hampshire is not the only state with a proof-of-citizenship law for voters. Arizona, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming have similar laws already in effect, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. Florida passed a law this year requiring documentary proof of citizenship to vote, but it won’t take effect until next year.
A similar law in Kansas, which required proof of citizenship for state and federal elections, was found in 2018 to violate both the U.S. Constitution and the National Voter Registration Act after it prevented more than 31,000 citizens from registering to vote.
Arizona established a two-tiered system after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that the state could not require citizenship documentation for federal elections. In August 2024, the court allowed some parts of the state’s proof-of-citizenship law to be enforced as the legal fight continued in lower courts.
The ruling comes as Trump is trying to push a proof-of-citizenship bill, the SAVE America Act, through Congress. Voting rights advocates say such a federal requirement could disenfranchise millions of people. A 2025 University of Maryland study estimated that 21.3 million Americans who are eligible to vote do not have or have easy access to documents to prove their citizenship, including nearly 10% of Democrats, 7% of Republicans and 14% of people unaffiliated with either major party.
New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan said he will reimplement the use of voter affidavits for registrants to prove citizenship, but noted the ruling doesn’t affect other 2024 changes to the law, including a requirement that those registering to vote provide documentary proof of identity, age and address. Voters also will continue to be required to show proof of identity on Election Day.
Washington
Pentagon policy illegally banned transgender troops from military service, appeals court panel rules
WASHINGTON (AP) — A Pentagon policy illegally banned transgender troops from military service, a divided panel of federal appeal court judges ruled on Monday in another legal setback for President Donald Trump’s sweeping agenda.
The majority opinion — by a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit — held that the Trump administration’s policy was designed to exclude people from the military based on their gender identity.
The ban is expected to remain in effect for now. The U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Pentagon to start enforcing it last year, as litigation continues to plays out.
The panel’s new ruling would keep the military from kicking out current service members named in the lawsuit, but wouldn’t allow new transgender recruits to join. The judges put their decision on hold, though, to let the administration seek further review.
The appeals court panel’s 2-1 decision partially upholds a March 2025 ruling by U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes in Washington, D.C. Reyes concluded that Trump’s executive order to exclude transgender troops from military service likely violates their
constitutional rights.
The administration appealed after Reyes issued a preliminary injunction requested by attorneys for several transgender people who are active-duty service members and others seeking to join the military. The appeals court’s majority decided that the injunction should be narrowed to the plaintiffs currently serving in the military but not those trying to enlist.
Another lawsuit challenging the ban was filed in Washington state and led to a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs challenging the policy in that case, though it was blocked by the Supreme Court.
In January 2025, Trump signed an executive order that claims the sexual identity of transgender service members “conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life” and is harmful to military readiness.
In response to the order, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a policy that presumptively disqualifies people with gender dysphoria from military service. Gender dysphoria is the distress that a person feels because their assigned gender and gender identity don’t match. The medical condition has been linked to depression and suicidal thoughts.
The policy “appears to be driven by the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group: persons who identify as transgender,” Judge Robert Wilkins wrote for the majority. Wilkins was nominated to the court by Democratic President Barack Obama.
In a dissenting opinion, Judge Justin Walker said judges lack the power to second-guess the decision to exclude transgender troops.
Judge says state must make it easier to prove citizenship when registering to vote
CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — A federal judge has said that New Hampshire must make voter registration easier by allowing applicants to attest to their U.S. citizenship if they don’t have the documents to prove it.
The case was seen as the first major legal test of an election reform that has been pushed nationally by President Donald Trump and has gained favor among many Republicans, though U.S. District Court Judge Samantha Elliot said she was not deciding whether requiring proof of citizenship itself is constitutional. Her ruling late Thursday night on a narrower question of New Hampshire law was significant, however, because it underscored the potential perils of implementing strict requirements for voters to document their U.S. citizenship so they can cast a ballot.
Elliot found that changes in 2024 to the state voter registration law unconstitutionally removed one method of proof -- namely, a voter’s sworn affidavit attesting to citizenship.
The changes took effect last year, after former Gov. Chris Sununu, a Republican, signed the bill two years ago. The attorney general’s office said it plans to appeal the judge’s ruling, calling the citizenship requirements a “common-sense approach to voter registration and election administration designed to protect the integrity of our elections.”
The ruling was a win for the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire and other plaintiffs who argued that the changes that took effect last year were burdensome and unnecessary.
In her ruling, Elliott said eliminating the affidavit option created a significant burden for voters and did little, if anything, to further the state’s interests. She noted that an expert on voter fraud found only 47 instances of wrongful voting out of roughly 8.3 million votes between 1998 and 2024. During that time, only eight noncitizens may have cast ballots, she said.
The lawsuit, filed on behalf of the Coalition for Open Democracy, the League of Women Voters of New Hampshire, the Forward Foundation and five voters, called the state’s voter registration law one of the most restrictive in the nation. During town elections last fall, some voters had trouble gathering passports, birth certificates or other proof of citizenship.
New Hampshire is not the only state with a proof-of-citizenship law for voters. Arizona, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming have similar laws already in effect, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. Florida passed a law this year requiring documentary proof of citizenship to vote, but it won’t take effect until next year.
A similar law in Kansas, which required proof of citizenship for state and federal elections, was found in 2018 to violate both the U.S. Constitution and the National Voter Registration Act after it prevented more than 31,000 citizens from registering to vote.
Arizona established a two-tiered system after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that the state could not require citizenship documentation for federal elections. In August 2024, the court allowed some parts of the state’s proof-of-citizenship law to be enforced as the legal fight continued in lower courts.
The ruling comes as Trump is trying to push a proof-of-citizenship bill, the SAVE America Act, through Congress. Voting rights advocates say such a federal requirement could disenfranchise millions of people. A 2025 University of Maryland study estimated that 21.3 million Americans who are eligible to vote do not have or have easy access to documents to prove their citizenship, including nearly 10% of Democrats, 7% of Republicans and 14% of people unaffiliated with either major party.
New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan said he will reimplement the use of voter affidavits for registrants to prove citizenship, but noted the ruling doesn’t affect other 2024 changes to the law, including a requirement that those registering to vote provide documentary proof of identity, age and address. Voters also will continue to be required to show proof of identity on Election Day.
Washington
Pentagon policy illegally banned transgender troops from military service, appeals court panel rules
WASHINGTON (AP) — A Pentagon policy illegally banned transgender troops from military service, a divided panel of federal appeal court judges ruled on Monday in another legal setback for President Donald Trump’s sweeping agenda.
The majority opinion — by a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit — held that the Trump administration’s policy was designed to exclude people from the military based on their gender identity.
The ban is expected to remain in effect for now. The U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Pentagon to start enforcing it last year, as litigation continues to plays out.
The panel’s new ruling would keep the military from kicking out current service members named in the lawsuit, but wouldn’t allow new transgender recruits to join. The judges put their decision on hold, though, to let the administration seek further review.
The appeals court panel’s 2-1 decision partially upholds a March 2025 ruling by U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes in Washington, D.C. Reyes concluded that Trump’s executive order to exclude transgender troops from military service likely violates their
constitutional rights.
The administration appealed after Reyes issued a preliminary injunction requested by attorneys for several transgender people who are active-duty service members and others seeking to join the military. The appeals court’s majority decided that the injunction should be narrowed to the plaintiffs currently serving in the military but not those trying to enlist.
Another lawsuit challenging the ban was filed in Washington state and led to a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs challenging the policy in that case, though it was blocked by the Supreme Court.
In January 2025, Trump signed an executive order that claims the sexual identity of transgender service members “conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life” and is harmful to military readiness.
In response to the order, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a policy that presumptively disqualifies people with gender dysphoria from military service. Gender dysphoria is the distress that a person feels because their assigned gender and gender identity don’t match. The medical condition has been linked to depression and suicidal thoughts.
The policy “appears to be driven by the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group: persons who identify as transgender,” Judge Robert Wilkins wrote for the majority. Wilkins was nominated to the court by Democratic President Barack Obama.
In a dissenting opinion, Judge Justin Walker said judges lack the power to second-guess the decision to exclude transgender troops.
