A federal judge in Washington blocked the Justice Department’s policy of gathering state voter lists and cross-referencing them with federal immigration databases to remove suspected noncitizens. U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan ruled that the arrangement violated federal privacy laws and overstepped the agency’s constitutional authority.
The decision represents a major legal defeat for the administration’s efforts to ramp up federal oversight of elections ahead of the midterms. Over the past year, the Justice Department requested unredacted voter rolls from 49 states and Washington, D.C., seeking sensitive personal data including full names, birth dates, residential addresses, and state driver’s license numbers.
While most states pushed back against the demands, 18 states agreed to turn over their registration lists and entered agreements promising to remove voters flagged by the federal government as potential noncitizens. Voting rights groups and affected individuals subsequently filed lawsuits, arguing that federal databases contain inaccuracies that routinely misidentify U.S. citizens.
Judge Sparkle Sooknanan Halts Voter Roll Audit Program in 78-Page Ruling
District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan concluded that the administration violated federal statutes by demanding non-public voter data and instructing states to purge their rolls within 45 days of completing audits. Sooknanan wrote that the policy amounted to an attempt by the federal government to dictate who is eligible to cast a ballot.
“The court vacates a policy that has removed United States citizens from the voter rolls in their home states and risks disenfranchising many more – a policy that flies in the face of duly enacted laws designed to protect Americans.”
Judge Sparkle Sooknanan, U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia
The court explicitly rejected arguments from the Justice Department pointing to two federal statutes and the 1960 Civil Rights Act to justify data collection. Sooknanan noted that the agency’s interpretation would subvert voter-protection laws originally enacted to combat Jim Crow-era restrictions, turning them upside down to authorize unprecedented federal interference.
Common Cause and Civil Rights Groups Celebrate Court Victory for Voters
Plaintiffs represented by watchdog organizations praised the ruling as a crucial safeguard for eligible voters. The litigation was brought by groups including Common Cause, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, the American Civil Liberties Union, Protect Democracy, and the Democracy and Rule of Law Clinic at Harvard Law School.
This is a victory for voters and yet another loss for the Department of Justice.
Virginia Kase Solomón, President and CEO of Common Cause
Individual plaintiffs joined the legal challenge after suffering direct consequences from flawed database matches. Anthony Nel, born in South Africa, obtained U.S. citizenship as a teenager but was misidentified as a noncitizen and purged from voter rolls in Texas before later being reinstated. Another plaintiff, Ruth Nasrullah, expressed shock over discovering her personal security was compromised simply for participating in elections.
Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements Database Flaws Under Scrutiny
At the center of the dispute is the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements database, known as SAVE, which the administration used to cross-reference state registration records. Sooknanan emphasized that the Justice Department ignored well-documented inaccuracies within citizenship records, including an internal 2006 Social Security audit that found more than 3 million naturalized citizens incorrectly labeled as noncitizens.
Legal representatives for civil rights organizations emphasized that safeguarding personal data remains a non-negotiable principle for maintaining secure elections. The Washington ruling aligns with actions taken by federal judges in 26 states and the Sixth Circuit who previously dismissed similar Justice Department demands as unlawful.
While the immediate practical impact of Friday’s injunction may be limited ahead of the November 3 midterm elections due to federal laws barring systematic purges within 90 days of a vote, the litigation establishes clear legal rules for voter registration heading into the 2028 presidential election. The Justice Department indicated it was reviewing the decision and did not immediately announce plans to appeal.
