5
#000000
#FFFFFF
voting rights
Voting Rights Advocates Sue Over Florida GOP 'Show Your Papers' Law
"The Legislature's failure to look out for constituents instead of legislators' own political interests will harm married women, naturalized citizens, young people, and many other eligible voters."
Apr 01, 2026
As President Donald Trump bullies Congress to pass a voter suppression bill while also trying to take matters into his own hands with an executive order, voting rights advocates on Wednesday sued to block similar legislation passed by Florida Republicans.
Common Cause, Florida Immigrant Coalition, Florida Rising, Hispanic Federation, League of Women Voters of Florida, and UnidosUS filed the lawsuit over House Bill 991 on the same day that the state's Republican governor, Ron DeSantis, signed it. The law requires documentary "evidence of citizenship," such as a birth certificate or passport, to register to vote or remain on the rolls.
"New barriers to voting too often fall hardest on the communities that have long fought to be heard in our democracy," noted Caren Short, director of legal and research at the League of Women Voters of the United States. "Sadly, but unsurprisingly, Florida's new documentary proof of citizenship law requirement is based on xenophobic lies and disinformation."
It's already illegal for noncitizens to vote, and research has shown voter fraud is incredibly rare. Short said that "the Legislature's failure to look out for constituents instead of legislators' own political interests will harm married women, naturalized citizens, young people, and many other eligible voters who do not have ready access to documents like passports or birth certificates."
Common Cause Florida executive director Amy Keith warned that "if this law stands, thousands of US citizens will be removed from Florida's voter rolls, blocking them from voting in the next presidential election if they can't afford specific documents."
"Life is getting increasingly harder and more expensive in Florida," Keith continued, "but with this bill, legislators are purging the very voters who are suffering most from Florida's affordability crisis. I don't think that's a coincidence."
UnidosUS Florida state director Jared Nordlund similarly said that the state's Republican policymakers "know their agenda is unpopular, and when they cannot win by persuading voters, they try to win by making it harder for people to vote."
"HB 991 is another solution in search of a problem, and Florida is once again the testing ground for a voter suppression playbook that could spread nationwide," Nordlund declared. "These laws target the voices they fear most, especially women, communities of color, and working-class voters."
The groups behind the suit—filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida—are represented by the state and national ACLU as well as the Advancement Project and LatinoJustice PRLDEF.
BREAKING: Gov. Ron DeSantis just signed Florida’s new anti-voter law, HB 991. This “show your papers” law adds unnecessary barriers to voting, so @aclu.org and @aclufl.bsky.social are suing. In America, voters choose our leaders — politicians don’t get to choose who votes.We’ll see you in court.
— Abdelilah Skhir (@abskhir.bsky.social) April 1, 2026 at 12:18 PM
"Florida's new 'show your papers' law is a blatant attempt to add unnecessary barriers to the ballot box," said Jonathan Topaz, staff attorney with the ACLU's Voting Rights Project. "We bring this lawsuit to ensure that Florida cannot block its eligible voters from exercising their fundamental right to vote because of missing or mismatched paperwork."
Separately on Wednesday, Elias Law Group launched another legal challenge on behalf of the Florida NAACP and the Florida Alliance for Retired Americans, also challenging what law firm partner Abha Khanna called "one of the worst voter suppression laws in modern American history." This case was filed in the Northern District of Florida.
DeSantis' signing of HB 991 and the subsequent suits came a day after Trump signed a voter suppression executive order that critics called a "blatant, unconstitutional abuse of power." The measure requires the secretary of homeland security to establish a "citizenship list" of verified eligible voters in each state and directs the postmaster general to make new rules for voting by mail.
Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project, said in a Tuesday statement that "once again, President Trump is attempting to seize power he does not have. The president's order is not about protecting elections—it's about trying to control them and using that control to make it harder to vote for his perceived enemies. The Constitution is very clear: Only Congress and the states can make laws regarding our elections."
"The ability to vote by mail is crucial to our democracy," she explained. "It ensures that voters with disabilities, those without transportation access, working families, those who are deployed or otherwise abroad, and many others who rely on its flexibility can exercise their right to vote. President Trump's attempts to undermine a safe, proven, and reliable method of voting is just another part of his strategy to sow distrust in our elections. As always, we are prepared to protect our democracy and our right to vote in court against these continued unconstitutional attacks."
Trump signed the order while pressuring the US Senate to pass anti-voter legislation that's already been approved by Republicans in the House of Representatives. Advancement Project power and democracy program director Hani Mirza said that the president's directive "cannot be separated from the broader legislative push for the SAVE America Act, which would impose burdensome proof-of-citizenship and photo ID requirements that would create new barriers to the ballot for millions of Americans."
"The authoritarian plan to shrink the number of people who can participate in the 2026 midterms is clear," Mirza added, just over seven months before Election Day. "In our ongoing pursuit of a truly multiracial democracy, we refuse to remain silent and will continue to defend the right to vote until every community is heard and every eligible voter is able to cast a ballot that counts."
This article has been updated to include a second lawsuit against the Florida law.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Trump Accused of ‘Intimidation Tactic’ for Attending Supreme Court Birthright Citizenship Hearing in Person
In an unprecedented move, Trump arrived at the court after accusing conservative justices of being "disloyal" for ruling against him in previous cases.
Apr 01, 2026
President Donald Trump is being accused of trying to "intimidate" the US Supreme Court as it hears oral arguments on his attempt to kill birthright citizenship.
Trump broke nearly 250 years of precedent as he arrived at the high court on Wednesday morning to personally observe the proceedings, which no sitting president has done.
As Kathryn Watson, a reporter for CBS News, explained, historically, "presidents have avoided attendance in part to honor the separation of powers."
Trump was in attendance as the justices—three of whom he appointed—mulled what could be their most consequential decision in decades: whether to uphold an executive order that would strip away a fundamental guarantee of citizenship enshrined in the US Constitution.
Making it all the more unnerving were the president's comments about the high court on Tuesday night in the Oval Office after letting reporters know he was "going" to keep tabs on Wednesday's proceedings.
He specifically zeroed in on the Republican-leaning justices, describing those he appointed as “disloyal” for ruling against him in previous cases. While describing the liberal justices as rank partisans, who’ll vote against him no matter what, he said the conservatives were “very different.”
"They want to show how honorable they are, so a man can appoint them, and they can rule against him and be so proud of it," Trump said.
"Some people would call it stupidity," Trump went on. "Some people would call it disloyal."
The court is expected to rule this summer on the legality of Trump’s executive order declaring that the children born to undocumented immigrants or those on temporary visas would no longer automatically become US citizens.
A lower court has already ruled against Trump's order, declaring it in violation of the 14th Amendment, which was passed following the Civil War and plainly states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
The Supreme Court will now hear arguments from the Trump administration seeking to undo that fundamental understanding, including ones advanced over a century ago by a former Confederate officer who also helped to establish the “separate but equal” doctrine that legalized racial segregation for over half a century.
If the court votes to uphold Trump's executive order, hundreds of thousands of American citizens could become effectively stateless.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, said it could also throw the citizenship of tens of millions more into doubt, as it would effectively require people with legal birth certificates to "prove" their parents' legal status.
Trump's effort to strip millions of people of their citizenship comes as his Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has pushed to ultimately deport "100 million people" from the country—a number that far exceeds the population of undocumented immigrants in the US.
DaMareo Cooper explained on Tuesday for Common Dreams that the Supreme Court's decision will determine "whether a president can rewrite one of the clearest promises embedded in American law":
If the court strikes down birthright citizenship, it would let the government decide who counts as American based on the circumstances of their birth.
The 14th Amendment’s authors understood the danger of that approach.
Once citizenship becomes conditional, every other right soon follows. Ending birthright citizenship would affect everyone—not just children of immigrants—in a system that has long questioned the belonging of people of color, including Black Americans.
Allowing the Trump administration to determine who counts as a citizen takes on even more weight in light of another likely unconstitutional executive order signed by the president on Tuesday, requiring DHS to create a "citizenship list" to determine who is allowed to vote in the 2026 election.
Given these extraordinary stakes, many observers fear that Trump’s appearance before the Supreme Court's deliberations on Wednesday is designed to send a message to the justices he's accused of being "disloyal."
Historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat called Trump's arrival at the high court an “intimidation tactic to remind judges of the costs of defying him.”
Josh Sorbe, a spokesperson for the Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee, said, "The separation of powers is pure fiction at this point."
Keep Reading
Show Less
A Nation's Sacred Promise Is Now Before the US Supreme Court
We shouldn’t be debating this right now. But since the president chose to act with such striking disregard for the law, here we are.
Apr 01, 2026
The US Supreme Court today will hear a major constitutional case about birthright citizenship. We shouldn’t be debating this right now. But since the president chose to act with such striking disregard for the law, here we are.
Birthright citizenship is in the Constitution. The first sentence of the 14th Amendment reads, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
This has been the law for more than 150 years. The amendment overturned the notorious Dred Scott decision, which said that even free Black Americans could not be U.S. citizens. The Supreme Court in 1898 confirmed the 14th Amendment’s plain meaning. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, it ruled that children born here are citizens, even if their parents are not. That principle gave rise to generations of new Americans.
Donald Trump tried to Sharpie this out of the Constitution. A few hours after he took office, he signed an executive order purporting to deny citizenship to the children born here to non-U.S. citizens. Courts immediately ruled against the White House. Last summer, the Supreme Court stopped individual judges from issuing such nationwide orders, but it left open the possibility of class action lawsuits. Hence Trump v. Barbara, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union.
This is open and shut. Con law for dummies.
Grasping for arguments, Trump’s lawyers landed on this: The 14th Amendment’s “one pervading purpose” was to protect the children of former slaves, not anyone else. That reading puts aside the clear language of the amendment, along with a century and a half of history and tradition. It’s historical fan fiction, designed to appeal to an “originalist” Court.
Historians Martha Jones and Kate Masur, a member of the Brennan Center’s Historians Council, corrected the record in a key amicus brief. “When the Framers wrote birthright citizenship into the Constitution, they were not addressing only the status of former slaves,” they explained. “They were also remedying the eight decades of injustice imposed upon free people born in the United States, among them free Black Americans, including those who had never been enslaved.” What’s more, the historians note, “The Framers well understood that the Amendment’s broad terms would recognize and protect the citizenship status of the children of immigrants.”
One echo throughout history: We’ve seen the arguments against birthright citizenship before, and they were born of nativism and made by racists. In our Countering Originalism handbook, we call this a “negative precedent.” “Negative,” as in “really ugly.”
Our constitutional rights in 2026 should not just have to rely on the goings-on during the 1860s, when the amendment was drafted. For 150 years, hundreds of thousands of children born in the United States to noncitizen parents have proudly grown up as American citizens.
It’s an open-and-shut case, as I said. So why is this case happening at all?
Because Trump is forcing the issue. And the case offers a depressing window into how the Supreme Court helps drive, ratify, and legitimize extremist arguments. It has fired up an originalist-industrial complex to concoct historical evidence to buttress unjustifiable outcomes.
Trump didn’t dare do this during his first term. But after his “shock and awe” barrage of executive orders at the start of his second term, conservative scholars suddenly had to find it plausible, intriguing, worth a second look. Two top professors, Randy Barnett and Ilan Wurman, suddenly discovered a “puzzle” to solve. “Trump might have a case on birthright citizenship,” they found a way to write.
“A lot of people, when Trump first started talking about it, thought this is crazy,” conservative scholar John Yoo told The New York Times. Yoo thought Barnett and Wurman’s argument too, ahem, tortured, and instead made “the originalist case for birthright citizenship.” The vast majority of scholars agree.
I think the Court is highly likely to reaffirm birthright citizenship. But who knows? I thought it likely the Court would allow criminal prosecutions of former presidents, which is similarly anticipated in the Constitution. Here, the case is even clearer, since the law has affected the lives of so many people before now.
The willingness to chuck aside precedent as well as logic is a hallmark of the Roberts Court. This term, we brace for a demolition of the Voting Rights Act, a further grant of vast power to presidents (this time allowing them to command expert federal agencies that were made independent by Congress), and another ruling to undermine campaign finance rules. The Court stood up to block the unilateral imposition of tariffs and has shown some backbone on other emergency powers cases. But overall, bit by bit, it continues its project to remake the country.
As for birthright citizenship, it is one of the crown jewels of the U.S. Constitution. For a century and a half, the nation’s promise was that anyone born here, however humble their circumstances, is an American. Let’s hope the Court upholds that cherished principle. And let’s shake our heads at the fact that it has to.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Most Popular