Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Most lawsuits challenging voter rolls, registration have little impact

Apart from Arizona’s new registration requirement, voters face few new hurdles

American flag, ballot box and scales of justice
wildpixel/Getty Images

Rosenfeld is the editor and chief correspondent of Voting Booth, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

Across the country, the earliest deadlines to register to vote before the Nov. 5 presidential election have passed — including in two swing states, Arizona and Georgia. That hard deadline will have a decisive impact on who can vote this fall.

In contrast, there are dozens of ongoing lawsuits — almost entirely from Republicans and groups allied with former President Donald Trump — that have been filed since late summer and contest how battleground states have maintained their voter rolls and register voters.


But with less than one month before Election Day, most of the registration-centered litigation appears unlikely to impact voters this fall. That’s because most of the suits are ongoing in state and federal court, where most judges are averse to last-minute rulings — especially once voting is underway.

The notable exceptions are Arizona’s new proof of citizenship requirement to register for its state and local elections — which was upheld by the Supreme Court — and, possibly, a Georgia effort to mass-challenge registrations (which counties have begun to reject).

On the other hand, this swarm of lawsuits has given Trump campaigners a prop to sow myths about illegal voters — even if their claims are never evaluated.

This split-screen reality exists because the court of legal option — which has rules of evidence and standards of proof — is not the same as the court of public opinion, where the First Amendment protects political speech, regardless of its veracity.

Nonetheless, in recent weeks most of the voter roll litigation has seen little action. Many officials who have been sued have not responded — delaying the process. Few evidentiary hearings have been scheduled. And some suits have been withdrawn for reasons that do not surprise legal experts — including conservative Republicans who investigated and reported on Trump’s 2020 claims and found “Biden’s victory is easily explained.”

“When you look at what is likely to take place in 2024 if it is a close election, the report Lost, Not Stolen ’ is really a handy reference guide,” said Ben Ginsberg, legal counsel for the George W. Bush and Mitt Romney presidential campaigns. “[It] looks at all 64 cases that were filed in 2020, which are similar to the issues that have already been raised in the pre-election litigation for this year. And what we concluded is that the charges that were brought by Donald Trump and his supporters, all 64 cases, lost because of a lack of evidence — not because there were procedural deficiencies in the cases.”

Backing down in Georgia

A Georgia lawsuit by two Trump activists in metro Atlanta is a telling example of a suit that collided with an established federal law — and, after initial bluster, was withdrawn.

The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 instructs states how to maintain voter rolls and expands registration. It also bars removing a registered voter within 90 days of an election. The Trump activists sued one day before that cutoff. Their lawsuit began: “Fulton County does not maintain, nor does it even attempt to maintain, accurate voter rolls.”

That claim is false. Nonetheless, the suit wanted a federal court to order Atlanta officials to disregard the NVRA’s purge deadline if their allies challenged tens of thousands of voter registrations — as was done in 2022’s general election. On Sept. 16, the activists withdrew their suit without citing a reason.

Election analysts have reported that there are more than 100 lawsuits across America that target different steps in the process. According to Democracy Docket — a voting rights news platform that tracks election litigation — more than a dozen suits challenging the NVRA have been filed in 2024’s seven battleground states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin).

Almost all challenge technical aspects of the NVRA. For example, they allege:

Most of these claims have not been factually evaluated. And there are yet more voter-list-centered lawsuits. However, a large number of partisan suits does not mean there are massive problems. Indeed, on Oct. 7, the Supreme Court declined to hear a Pennsylvania suit challenging a White House directive to expand registration.

As registration closes in many states, it appears that most of this Republican litigation will not impact voters. Rather, experts say its goal is to “ sow doubts ” if Trump loses.

“What’s important in 2024 is to beware of the rhetoric,” Ginsberg said. “A campaign and party that loses a close election is going to find reasons to file cases.”

Correction 10/15/24: Democracy Docket was previously referenced as run by Democratic Party lawyers. They are a voting rights news platform founded by attorney Marc Elias that tracks election litigation.


Read More

Person holding a sign that reads, "Get ICE out of our cities."

Rep. Maxine Dexter (D-OR) joins the Congressional Hispanic Caucus rally outside of the ICE Headquarters on February 03, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Heather Diehl

Democrats’ Demands for ICE Reform

After the killing of two Minneapolis citizens by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers in January, Democrats refused to approve further funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) without new reforms. As a result, starting on February 14, no funding has been available for most DHS agencies: TSA, FEMA, CISA, and Coast Guard employees have either been furloughed or are required to work without paychecks (although backpay is expected).

ICE and CBP were given enough funding by last year's so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act to continue operations essentially indefinitely in the wake of a shutdown, leaving the rest of DHS as the only leverage Democrats have left.

Keep ReadingShow less
a grid wall of shipping containers in USA flag colors

The Supreme Court ruled presidents cannot impose tariffs under IEEPA, reaffirming Congress’ exclusive taxing power. Here’s what remains legal under Sections 122, 232, 301, and 201.

Getty Images, J Studios

Just the Facts: What Presidents Can’t Do on Tariffs Now

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


What Is No Longer Legal After the Supreme Court Ruling

  • Presidents may not impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court held that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate … importation” does not include the power to levy tariffs. Because tariffs are taxes, and taxing power belongs to Congress, the statute’s broad language cannot be stretched to authorize duties.
  • Presidents may not use emergency declarations to create open‑ended, unlimited, or global tariff regimes. The administration’s claim that IEEPA permitted tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope was rejected outright. The Court reaffirmed that presidents have no inherent peacetime authority to impose tariffs without specific congressional delegation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • The president may not use vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language—such as IEEPA’s general power to “regulate”—cannot be stretched to authorize taxation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • Presidents may not rely on vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language, such as IEEPA’s general power to "regulate," cannot be stretched to authorize taxation or repurposed to justify tariffs. The decision in United States v. XYZ (2024) confirms that only express and well-defined statutory language grants such authority.

What Remains Legal Under the Constitution and Acts of Congress

  • Congress retains exclusive constitutional authority over tariffs. Tariffs are taxes, and the Constitution vests taxing power in Congress. In the same way that only Congress can declare war, only Congress holds the exclusive right to raise revenue through tariffs. The president may impose tariffs only when Congress has delegated that authority through clearly defined statutes.
  • Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Balance‑of‑Payments Tariffs). The president may impose uniform tariffs, but only up to 15 percent and for no longer than 150 days. Congress must take action to extend tariffs beyond the 150-day period. These caps are strictly defined. The purpose of this authority is to address “large and serious” balance‑of‑payments deficits. No investigation is mandatory. This is the authority invoked immediately after the ruling.
  • Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (National Security Tariffs). Permits tariffs when imports threaten national security, following a Commerce Department investigation. Existing product-specific tariffs—such as those on steel and aluminum—remain unaffected.
  • Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Unfair Trade Practices). Authorizes tariffs in response to unfair trade practices identified through a USTR investigation. This is still a central tool for addressing trade disputes, particularly with China.
  • Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Safeguard Tariffs). The U.S. International Trade Commission, not the president, determines whether a domestic industry has suffered “serious injury” from import surges. Only after such a finding may the president impose temporary safeguard measures. The Supreme Court ruling did not alter this structure.
  • Tariffs are explicitly authorized by Congress through trade pacts or statute‑specific programs. Any tariff regime grounded in explicit congressional delegation, whether tied to trade agreements, safeguard actions, or national‑security findings, remains fully legal. The ruling affects only IEEPA‑based tariffs.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court’s ruling draws a clear constitutional line: Presidents cannot use emergency powers (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, cannot create global tariff systems without Congress, and cannot rely on vague statutory language to justify taxation but they may impose tariffs only under explicit, congressionally delegated statutes—Sections 122, 232, 301, 201, and other targeted authorities, each with defined limits, procedures, and scope.

Keep ReadingShow less
America’s Human Rights Reports Face A Reckoning Ahead of Feb. 25th
black and white labeled bottle
Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash

America’s Human Rights Reports Face A Reckoning Ahead of Feb. 25th

The Trump administration has already moved to erase evidence of enslavement and abuse from public records. It has promoted racially charged imagery attacking Michelle and Barack Obama. But the anti-DEI campaign does not stop at symbolic politics or culture-war spectacle. It now threatens one of the United States’ most important accountability tools: the State Department’s annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.

Quiet regulatory changes have begun to hollow out this vital instrument, undermining America’s ability to document abuse, support victims, and hold perpetrators to account. The next reports are due February 25, 2026. Whether they appear on time—and what may be scrubbed or withheld—remains an open question.

Keep ReadingShow less
A child's hand holding an adult's hand.
"Names have meanings and shape our destinies. Research shows that they open doors and get your resume to the right eyes and you to the corner office—or not," writes Professor F. Tazeena Husain.
Getty Images, LaylaBird

Who Are the Trespassers?

Explaining cruelty to a child is difficult, especially when it comes from policy, not chance. My youngest son, just old enough to notice, asks why a boy with a backpack is crying on TV. He wonders why the police grip his father’s hand so tightly, and why the woman behind them is crying so hard she can barely walk.

Unfortunately, I tell him that sometimes people are taken away, even if they have done nothing wrong. Sometimes, rules are enforced in ways that hurt families. He seemingly nods, but I can see he’s unsure. In a child’s world, grown-ups are supposed to keep you safe, and rules are meant to protect you if you follow them. I wish I had always believed that, too.

Keep ReadingShow less