Perplexity
ChatGPT
Claude
Gemini
Federal Judge Strikes Down DOJ’s Nationwide Voter-Roll Program, Even in States That Cooperated
A federal judge has dismantled the Justice Department’s nationwide effort to collect state voter registration records and screen them for noncitizens. The ruling also bars the department from using data that cooperating states had already handed over. The decision is the most sweeping court setback yet for the administration’s push to take a larger role in election administration, which the Constitution leaves largely to the states. It comes weeks before the November midterms. Our EB-1A consultants have delved into some of the nuances of the ruling.
The essence of the ruling
U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan of Washington issued the 78-page decision on Friday, October 9, 2026. She struck down the department’s entire voter list maintenance policy and invalidated it nationwide. Bloomberg’s headline called the program a “dragnet” probe, and its summary said she struck down the policy of collecting, reviewing and sharing confidential voter data to identify potentially ineligible people and urge states to remove them.
Sooknanan, a Biden appointee, previously served as principal deputy assistant attorney general in the department’s Civil Rights Division. She wrote that the department “cannot run roughshod over longstanding laws” meant to protect Americans’ rights.
How the program worked
According to the record described in the ruling, the department demanded complete, unredacted voter rolls from 49 states and the District of Columbia. It sought names, birthdates, residential addresses, and driver’s license and Social Security numbers. The Hill’s account says the request included partial Social Security numbers.
At least 18 states complied. The department shared their data with the Department of Homeland Security, which ran it through the federal SAVE database to check citizenship status. The Civil Rights Division also made an arrangement with Homeland Security Investigations, the investigative arm of ICE, to share voter files for possible election-law investigations.
The participating states agreed to a further step. If the department flagged voters as potentially ineligible, they would “clean” their rolls within 45 days and remove those voters before sending updated files back.
The administration says it needs the data to confirm that states comply with the Help America Vote Act and the National Voter Registration Act, which require states to maintain accurate rolls.
Why the judge ruled as she did
Sooknanan found that none of the laws the department invoked authorized a nationwide regime. Those were the Civil Rights Act of 1960, the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act. She also held that the policy violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the Privacy Act. Another report says the department improperly shared voter information with other agencies to determine citizenship, going beyond what federal law permits.
Accuracy was a central concern. She found the department had not adequately considered that the citizenship databases could misidentify eligible citizens as noncitizens. Federal records can be outdated for people who became citizens after first receiving Social Security numbers, and the ruling cites evidence that millions of citizens have historically been misclassified.
She treated the risk as real. The policy, she wrote, “has removed United States citizens from the voter rolls in their home states” and risks disenfranchising many more.
She also rejected the department’s privacy argument that people on statewide voter rolls could be treated as “subjects” of fraud investigations under an existing records system. In effect, she said ordinary Americans do not understand themselves to be under federal investigation simply because they registered to vote.
The reach of the order
The department urged the court to limit relief to the plaintiffs. Sooknanan instead set the policy aside nationwide under the Administrative Procedure Act. That means the ruling covers files already received and files still being litigated over. It bars the department from sharing the data with DHS, running it through citizenship databases or using the results to press for removals.
The plaintiffs, Common Cause and individual voters, argued that the department was trying to seize control of registration procedures that states traditionally oversee. Sooknanan agreed that the authority belongs with the states. In her words, the policy represented the federal government’s attempt to decide who gets to vote.
What the ruling does not do
The judge stressed the limits of her order. It does not stop the federal government from taking lawful steps to support state efforts, and it does not stop states from maintaining their own rolls. States may still use SAVE themselves, though the department may not use it as part of the nationwide program. She added that the ruling does not open the door for ineligible people to vote.
Reaction and legal fallout
A Justice Department spokesperson said the agency is reviewing the decision. Common Cause CEO Virginia Kase Solomón welcomed it as a victory for voters. Justin Levitt, a former Civil Rights Division official, wrote on social media: “This is a big deal.” He argued the ruling carries serious implications for the 18 cooperating states, an assessment that is his own and not a court finding.
A conservative commentator wrote that the department’s argument for a narrower remedy raises a substantial legal question worth appellate review, and he asked whether one district judge should be able to cancel arrangements that willing states entered. He noted that the department can seek review.
A string of losses
The department has now lost repeatedly on voter data. More than two dozen judges have declined to compel individual states to hand over their voter lists. At least 25 federal district courts had dismissed its separate enforcement suits, and one appeals court had affirmed a dismissal. In June, Sooknanan ruled that the overhauled SAVE database, which now includes Social Security data, was created unlawfully. The Supreme Court temporarily paused that ruling last month.
The practical effect on the midterms may be limited. Federal law bars states from systematically removing ineligible voters within 90 days of an election. President Trump argues that more federal scrutiny is needed to prevent noncitizen voting and fraud, though most election experts consider both extremely rare.
At GCEB1, our EB-1A experts consistently write and publish detailed analysis on policies emerging in the U.S. immigration landscape. Stay tuned to us to get authentic insights and analysis on U.S. immigration. We wish you a safe and stress free journey abroad.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who issued the ruling?
U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan of the federal court in Washington, D.C.
2. What did she strike down?
The Justice Department’s nationwide voter list maintenance policy, including collection of voter data and its review against citizenship databases.
3. Does it apply to states that cooperated?
Yes. It bars continued use of data from at least 18 states that voluntarily shared voter files.
4. What laws did the judge say the department violated?
She found no authority under the Civil Rights Act of 1960, the National Voter Registration Act or the Help America Vote Act, and found violations of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Privacy Act.
5. Who brought the case?
Common Cause and individual voters.
6. Can states still use the SAVE database?
Yes. The ruling does not stop states from maintaining their own rolls, including with SAVE.
7. What data did the department seek?
Names, birthdates, addresses, and driver’s license and Social Security numbers, according to Democracy Docket.
8. Will the department appeal?
A spokesperson said it is reviewing the decision. It can seek appellate review.
9. Will this change the November midterms?
Possibly little. Federal law already bars systematic removals within 90 days of an election, according to CBS News.
Sources & further readings
- Bloomberg News. “US Judge Blocks DOJ Effort to Obtain State Voter Records Nationwide.” Bloomberg, October 9, 2026. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-10-09/us-judge-blocks-doj-s-dragnet-probes-of-voter-fraud-nationwide.
- Congress.net. “Federal Judge Blocks DOJ From Collecting State Voter Lists For Citizenship Database.” October 9, 2026. https://congress.net/federal-judge-blocks-doj-from-collecting-state-voter-lists-for-citizenship-database/.
- Manney, David. “Trump’s DOJ Wanted State Voter Rolls, but a Judge Said Congress Never Authorized It.” PJ Media, October 9, 2026. https://pjmedia.com/david-manney/2026/10/09/trumps-doj-wanted-state-voter-rolls-a-judge-said-congress-never-authorized-it-n4958168.
- Rivas, Yunior. “Federal Judge Shuts Down Trump DOJ’s Nationwide Voter Roll Crusade, Even in States That Cooperated.” Democracy Docket, October 9, 2026. https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/federal-judge-shuts-down-trump-dojs-nationwide-voter-roll-crusade/.
- Rosen, Jacob. “Judge Strikes Down DOJ’s Policy of Reviewing State Voter Rolls, Saying It Would ‘Run Roughshod over Longstanding Laws.’” CBS News, October 9, 2026. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-blocks-doj-state-voter-roll-policy-civil-rights/.
- The Hill. “Federal Judge: DOJ Cannot Request States’ Voter Lists for Eligibility Database.” October 9, 2026. https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/6140273-judge-blocks-doj-voter-rolls-program/.
