In a resounding rebuke to presidential overreach, a Massachusetts federal judge has decisively enjoined President Trump's endeavor to unilaterally reshape U.S. electoral protocols, siding with a coalition of Democratic state attorneys general who cogently argued the initiative's manifest unconstitutionality; Trump's executive fiat, promulgated in March, which sought to mandate documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration, proscribe the acceptance of postal ballots postmarked after Election Day, and render federal election subsidies contingent upon states' acquiescence to this novel, temporally circumscribed framework, was deemed by the White House as essential to guaranteeing "free, fair and honest elections"; however, Judge Denise J. Casper, in a meticulously reasoned judgment, posited that the plaintiff states were likely to prevail in their substantive legal challenges, emphasizing the Constitution's conspicuous absence of explicit grants of electoral power to the Executive branch; the judicial interdict also nullified the provision mandating the wholesale rejection of absentee or mail-in ballots arriving after the statutory Election Day deadline, marking the second juridical impediment to Trump's electoral directive, following a prior ruling in Washington D.C. that similarly curtailed aspects of the contested order.