The US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down several provisions in two Arizona laws on Tuesday that required residents to provide documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC) to vote in elections.

The plaintiffs include several nonprofits, the Democratic National Committee, the Arizona Democratic Party, and three federally recognized native tribes. The defendants include Arizona state officials, Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, and Attorney General Kris Mayes, among others. The plaintiffs initiated the proceedings by challenging voter registration laws, HB 2492 and HB 2243, on the grounds they violated or preempted the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the consent decree in League of United Latin American Citizens of Arizona v Reagan (LULAC Consent Decree), the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and the Civil Rights Act.

These laws collectively allowed government officials to “require heightened proof of citizenship from federal-form and state-form applications.” As such, federal-form applicants without DPOC would be deemed ineligible to vote for president or by mail while state-form applications would be rejected.  The court found that while some provisions of the laws are legitimate, “many of the challenged provisions are unlawful measures of voter suppression.” The court also vacated the lower court’s finding that HB 2243 was not “enacted with intent to discriminate” and remanded the case for further proceedings.

To support its conclusion, the court reasoned that the DPOC requirement to vote in presidential elections is preempted by section 6 of the NVRA while the requirement that county recorders must perform “citizen checks of voters” they have “reason to believe” are not citizens violates section 8(b) of the NVRA. The court took issue with several other provisions of the laws for similar reasons.

Thus, the court largely affirmed the lower court’s orders regarding the plaintiff’s Equal Protection, LULAC Consent Decree, NVRA, and Civil Rights Act claims. As a result, government officials are permanently enjoined from enforcing provisions of the laws deemed invalid.

In response to the court’s decision, John Sherman, litigation director at the Fair Elections Center, explained:

The so-called ‘reason to believe’ law gave officials a mechanism to discriminate against naturalized Arizonans and question their right to vote based solely on the language they speak, their dress, or any other completely arbitrary stereotypes of what U.S. citizens do or do not look like. Today’s decision is the first time a circuit court has issued an opinion enforcing this provision of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and it is a major victory for voting rights.

This decision comes amidst President Donald Trump’s sweeping overhaul of immigration policies, including an executive order purporting to end birthright citizenship. Last week, a federal judge declined to overturn an injunction preventing Trump’s executive order from taking effect.