Judge Strikes Down Justice Department's Voter-Roll Citizenship Checks, Ruling Congress Never Authorized Them
Judge Sparkle Sooknanan's 78-page ruling also covers voter files from 18 states that handed them over voluntarily. The Justice Department says it is reviewing the decision ahead of the Nov. 3 midterms.
Files handed over freely, now off limits
Indiana's secretary of state, Diego Morales, sent the Justice Department records on nearly 5 million voters [7]. Nobody forced him to. Indiana was one of 18 states that cooperated with the department's request, according to Reuters [1].
On Friday, Oct. 9, a federal judge ruled that the department can't use those files for its nationwide voter-roll program [1][3]. U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan of the District of Columbia issued a 78-page opinion in a suit brought by Common Cause, a voting-rights group [1][4]. The ruling reaches states that never joined the suit.
The department says it is reviewing the decision [1]. It has not announced an appeal. Federal elections are less than a month away, on Nov. 3.
What the judge said Congress did not do
The program collected state voter rolls and checked them against federal citizenship records. The department leaned on three laws: the Civil Rights Act of 1960, the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and the Help America Vote Act. The judge ruled that none of the three authorized it [3][6].
Her central point was about who holds the power. "The challenged policy represents the federal government's attempt to decide who gets to vote," she wrote. She said Congress left that job to the states [1].
She also found two other problems. The program, she ruled, broke the Privacy Act, which limits how federal agencies gather and share personal records. It also broke the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how agencies make rules and policies, was a third violation [3][4].
The Civil Rights Act of 1960 got special attention. Congress wrote it to let federal officials investigate discrimination against Black voters. The judge said the department turned that purpose around by using the law to strike names from rolls instead of protecting access [6]. In her words, it ran "roughshod" over civil rights laws [2].
Why a ruling for a few plaintiffs covers 18 states
The judge didn't just block the department in one place. She "vacated" the policy. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, vacating an agency policy erases it for everyone, not only for the people who sued [3].
That's why the ruling covers voluntary states. The department can no longer use their files for the nationwide program. That includes sharing them with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or running them through citizenship databases [3].
Cooperating states see a problem here. Elections are run by states, and sharing data with federal partners is a state choice. Officials like Morales say they were using their own authority to check their own rolls [7]. Right-leaning coverage argues that one district judge has overridden that choice [7].
Common Cause and its allies answer that this breadth was the point. They wanted a remedy no state could opt back into [3]. The same breadth makes an appeal over the ruling's scope likely [3].
The department's case
The department and the Trump administration start from a plain premise. Only citizens may vote in federal elections. The NVRA requires states to make a reasonable effort to remove ineligible voters. The administration argues that checking rolls against federal citizenship records is the most direct way to catch what states miss [3].
It also argues that Congress already gave it the power. The Civil Rights Act of 1960 lets the attorney general demand election records to investigate. In the department's view, collecting voter files falls inside that grant [3]. It adds that many states wanted the partnership, and a court shouldn't undo it [7].
There's a strategic pressure too. The department sued about 30 states plus Washington, D.C., after they refused to hand over unredacted voter rolls. Reuters reports it has lost 26 of those cases without winning one [1]. A national system that doesn't depend on each state's willingness would solve that problem. This ruling closes off that route for now.
The number both sides lean on
The administration says SAVE, a DHS citizenship-verification tool, has flagged 28,635 possible noncitizens. That's out of more than 65 million voter registrations checked, about 0.04%. The administration treats those flags as leads for states to investigate, not as proof of fraud.
A flag isn't a confirmed noncitizen. SAVE draws on immigration and Social Security records. Those records can lag behind a person's naturalization, so a new citizen can be flagged by mistake. No error rate has been released. No one has published a confirmed count of noncitizens found through the department's program.
Texas offers a test case. Officials there confirmed that some flagged voters had already proven their citizenship [9]. The judge wrote that the policy "has removed United States citizens from the voter rolls in their home states and risks disenfranchising many more" [3]. How many citizens were removed hasn't been made public.
So each side holds a number it can't fully explain. The 28,635 counts flags, not proven cases. The removals are a court finding without a published count.
Smaller stakes this fall, bigger questions later
The ruling may change less before Nov. 3 than it sounds. Federal law bars systematic removal of voters within 90 days of a federal election. Few removals were expected before November either way [10].
States also keep another tool. On Sept. 25, the Supreme Court let them keep using the expanded SAVE system for now [10]. So cooperating states can still run their own checks. What they've lost is the pooled federal use of their files.
Coverage split along familiar lines. Reuters ran a straight headline but added the department's 26-loss record, which frames the ruling as part of a pattern [1]. CNN led with the judge's "roughshod" line [2]. Democracy Docket, founded by Democratic election lawyer Marc Elias, called the program a "crusade" [3]. Courthouse News said it was used "to boot citizen voters," which turns a contested finding into the program's purpose [12].
On the right, The Washington Times described the program as an effort to "cleanse" rolls of noncitizens, which states the department's goal as fact [6]. The Hoosier Enquirer put the judge's appointment by President Biden in its headline [7]. PJ Media centered its headline on whether Congress had authorized the program [13]. Al Jazeera, which is Qatari state-funded, called the ruling "another setback" for Trump's push on elections [11].
Two questions remain open. One is legal: who has the power to police voter rolls, and can one judge's ruling reach states that wanted the help? The other is factual: of the people flagged, how many are noncitizens and how many are citizens wrongly caught? Both could be tested if the department appeals.
Summary
On Friday, Oct. 9, U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan in Washington, D.C., struck down a Justice Department program. The program collected state voter rolls and checked them against federal citizenship records [1][2]. The ruling sided with Common Cause, a voting-rights group [1]. In a 78-page opinion, the judge said no law passed by Congress gave the department this power. She also found that the program broke federal privacy and paperwork laws [3][4]. 'The challenged policy represents the federal government's attempt to decide who gets to vote,' she wrote. She said Congress left that power to the states [1].
The ruling's reach is what makes it unusual. The judge did not just block DOJ in one state. She 'vacated' the policy. Under federal law on agency actions, that wipes the policy off the books for everyone, not just for the people who sued [3]. So it also covers 18 mostly Republican-led states that gave DOJ their voter files willingly [1][5]. One of them, Indiana, handed over records on nearly 5 million voters [7]. DOJ can no longer use those files for the nationwide program, including sharing them with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or running them through citizenship databases [3].
DOJ says it is reviewing the ruling [1]. The program's supporters say the federal government has a duty to help keep noncitizens off voter rolls. The administration says SAVE, a DHS citizenship-verification tool, has flagged 28,635 possible noncitizens out of more than 65 million voter registrations checked. A flag is a lead for review, not a confirmed noncitizen. The Supreme Court on Sept. 25 let states keep using SAVE [10]. Critics say the data can be wrong: in Texas, some flagged voters had already proven their citizenship [9], and the judge found the policy had removed U.S. citizens from voter rolls [3]. The central dispute has two parts. One is legal: who has the power to police voter rolls. The other is factual: how many flagged voters are actually noncitizens, and how many are citizens wrongly caught.
The Event
On Oct. 9, 2026, Judge Sparkle Sooknanan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a 78-page opinion in a suit brought by Common Cause against the Justice Department [1][4]. She vacated the department's Voter List Maintenance Policy, which DOJ internally called its 'list maintenance project' [3]. The judge found the policy violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the Privacy Act and the Paperwork Reduction Act [4][7]. The Justice Department said it was reviewing the decision [1].
Undisputed Facts
- Judge Sooknanan ruled for Common Cause on Oct. 9, 2026, in a 78-page opinion [1][4].
- The judge vacated DOJ's nationwide Voter List Maintenance Policy. The ruling reaches voter files from states that gave them voluntarily [3].
- DOJ relied on the Civil Rights Act of 1960, the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and the Help America Vote Act. The judge ruled that none of the three authorized the program [3][6].
- Eighteen states cooperated with DOJ's request, according to Reuters. Indiana's secretary of state sent records on nearly 5 million voters [1][7].
- Reuters reports that DOJ sued about 30 states and D.C. after they refused to hand over unredacted voter rolls, and that DOJ has lost 26 of those cases without winning one [1].
- On Sept. 25, 2026, the Supreme Court let states use the expanded SAVE system to check voter citizenship for now [10].
- Federal law bars systematic removal of voters within 90 days of a federal election, so few removals were expected before November regardless of the outcome [10].
- Judge Sooknanan was appointed by President Joe Biden [15].
The Pressure
Strip away the moralizing and blame. What structural realities persist regardless of which narrative wins?
- Federalism in election law
- The Constitution and federal statutes put voter-list upkeep with the states. Federal agencies need a specific grant from Congress to take that job on, and that is the gap the judge found [1][3].
- Database accuracy
- SAVE matches people against immigration and Social Security records. Those records can lag behind naturalizations, so a 'flag' is a lead, not proof of noncitizenship [9].
- The election calendar
- The NVRA's 90-day quiet period already limited mass removals before Nov. 3. So the near-term stakes are about data and precedent more than about who votes this fall [10].
- Scope of the remedy
- Vacating an agency policy under the Administrative Procedure Act erases it for everyone. That is why the ruling reaches states that were not part of the suit, and why an appeal over its scope is likely [3].
Material realityDOJ holds voter files from 18 states but can no longer use them for its nationwide program unless a higher court intervenes [1][3]. Separately, states may still run their own SAVE checks under the Supreme Court's Sept. 25 order [10]. The administration says SAVE has flagged 28,635 possible noncitizens out of more than 65 million registrations checked, about 0.04%. That counts flags, not confirmed cases, and no error rate has been released. Some flagged Texas voters had already proven their citizenship [9]. No one has published a confirmed count of noncitizens found through DOJ's program.
Narrative as a weaponDOJ and right-leaning outlets want readers to see a partisan judge blocking a common-sense citizenship check that cooperating states had welcomed. Common Cause, voting-rights groups and left-leaning outlets want readers to see a federal power grab that used flawed data to purge citizens, with the judge's strongest quotes doing most of the work. Both sides lean on numbers they do not fully explain. The 28,635 figure counts flags, not proven noncitizens. 'Removed citizens' is a court finding whose scale has not been made public. Wire and international coverage is the straightest, but it frames the ruling as one more loss for Trump.
How Each Side Sees It
Each major actor’s view — how it frames things, its underlying incentive, and how it’s materially affected. Tap a side to read it.
Frames it asOnly citizens may vote in federal elections. The NVRA requires states to make a reasonable effort to remove ineligible voters. The administration's view is that a federal check against federal citizenship records is the most direct way to catch what states miss [3]. DOJ also cites the Civil Rights Act of 1960. That law lets the attorney general demand election records to investigate, so DOJ argues that collecting voter files is a power Congress already granted [3]. The administration says SAVE has flagged 28,635 possible noncitizens among more than 65 million registrations checked. It treats those as leads that states should be allowed to investigate, not as proof of fraud. Many states chose to cooperate, and DOJ argues a court should not undo a partnership those states wanted [7].
WhyTo make election integrity a defining federal priority before the midterms. To build a national citizenship-check system that does not depend on each state's willingness. And to win on the legal question of federal authority after a string of losses in state-by-state suits [1][11].
Impact on themDOJ loses use of voter files it already holds for the nationwide program [3]. It must appeal or rebuild the program on another legal footing. The ruling adds to what Reuters counts as 26 straight losses in voter-roll cases [1].
Frames it asThe Civil Rights Act of 1960 was written to let federal officials investigate discrimination against Black voters. The judge said DOJ turned that law on its head by using it to strike names from the rolls, not to protect access [6]. The Privacy Act limits how federal agencies gather and share personal records. Pooling unredacted files on millions of voters and sharing them with DHS, without the required notice and review, is the kind of thing that law was written to stop [3][4]. On accuracy: SAVE draws on immigration and Social Security records. Those records may not show that someone later became a citizen, so naturalized citizens can be flagged by mistake. Texas confirmed that this happened [9]. The judge wrote that the policy 'has removed United States citizens from the voter rolls in their home states and risks disenfranchising many more' [3].
WhyTo stop a federal process they see as a path to wrongful voter purges. And to win a ruling broad enough that no state can opt back into it [3].
Impact on themThey won a nationwide remedy, not a patchwork of state rulings [3]. They now face a likely appeal [1].
Frames it asElections are run by states, and that includes deciding to share data with federal partners. Officials such as Indiana Secretary of State Diego Morales gave their files in response to a federal request. In their view, they were using their own authority to verify their own rolls [7]. Right-leaning coverage argues that a single district judge has overridden that state choice [7].
WhyTo show voters they are acting on noncitizen voting. And to keep access to federal citizenship checks, which the Supreme Court separately allowed states to use through SAVE [10].
Impact on themData they handed over can no longer feed DOJ's nationwide program [3]. They can still run SAVE checks themselves under the Supreme Court's Sept. 25 order. But the 90-day rule limits removals before November [10].
Frames it asFederal law gives states, not Washington, the job of maintaining voter lists. Handing over unredacted files containing driver's license and Social Security numbers puts voters' privacy at risk. These states have argued in court that DOJ had no right to the data, and courts have largely agreed [1].
WhyTo protect state control of elections and voter privacy. And to avoid being pushed into removing voters based on federal data they cannot check [1][9].
Impact on themThe ruling strengthens their position in pending suits and lowers federal pressure before the midterms [1][3].
Like this article?
The Bias Ledger average rating 4.6
The same story, as framed by outlets across the spectrum, ordered least to most biased. The bias score (1 = straight, 10 = heavily spun) is an AI assessment of that framing — click an outlet to see its track record. The tell is the word choice or omission that reveals the angle.
| Outlet | Vantage | Bias | How they frame it | The tell |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reuters | U.S. center (wire) | 2 | US judge rules Justice Department use of voter rolls unlawful | Straight headline. It adds context that frames DOJ's record as a losing streak (26 losses, no wins). The figure is accurate, but it shapes how readers see the ruling. |
| Al Jazeera | Qatari state-funded | 3 | US judge rules Trump administration's use of voter data unlawful | A neutral headline. The text calls the ruling 'another setback' for Trump's election push, a running-scoreboard frame. |
| CNN | U.S. center-left | 4 | Justice Department ran 'roughshod' over civil rights with plans to audit state voter rolls, judge says | The judge's sharpest phrase leads the headline. It is attributed, but DOJ's rationale gets far less space. |
| The Washington Times | U.S. right | 5 | Judge strikes down DOJ's effort to cleanse state voter rolls of noncitizens | The headline states DOJ's goal as fact, with the loaded verb 'cleanse'. It also omits the judge's finding that citizens were removed. The body does report the judge's reasoning and identifies her as a Biden appointee. |
| Courthouse News | U.S. center (legal trade) | 5 | Judge blocks DOJ from using national voter database to boot citizen voters | 'To boot citizen voters' turns a contested finding into the program's purpose, which is the plaintiffs' framing. |
| Hoosier Enquirer | U.S. right (Indiana) | 6 | Indiana Gave DOJ Nearly 5 Million Voters' Personal Data. A Biden-Appointed Judge Just Struck Down the Program Built on It. | The judge's appointing president is placed at the center of the headline. The ruling is framed as one judge overriding Indiana's choice. |
| Democracy Docket | U.S. left (founded by Democratic election lawyer Marc Elias) | 7 | Federal judge shuts down Trump DOJ's nationwide voter roll crusade, even in states that cooperated | 'Crusade' is the outlet's own word, not the court's. The flagged-voter data DOJ relies on is absent. |
References
- US Judge Rules Justice Department Use of Voter Rolls Unlawful — Reuters · Wire service; commercial, generally center
- Justice Department ran 'roughshod' over civil rights with plans to audit state voter rolls, judge says — CNN · Commercial cable network; center-left
- Federal judge shuts down Trump DOJ's nationwide voter roll crusade, even in states that cooperated — Democracy Docket · Progressive; founded by Democratic election lawyer Marc Elias
- Memorandum Opinion, Common Cause v. U.S. Department of Justice (D.D.C., Oct. 9, 2026) — U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (hosted by Democracy Docket) · Primary court record
- Federal judge: DOJ cannot request states' voter lists for eligibility database — The Hill · Commercial; center
- Judge strikes down DOJ's effort to cleanse state voter rolls of noncitizens — The Washington Times · Conservative; owned by Unification Church-linked Operations Holdings
- Indiana Gave DOJ Nearly 5 Million Voters' Personal Data. A Biden-Appointed Judge Just Struck Down the Program Built on It. — Hoosier Enquirer · Conservative-leaning Indiana digital outlet
- Supreme Court rules in favor of Trump's SAVE system, but impact on 2026 election will be limited — Votebeat · Nonprofit election-administration newsroom (Chalkbeat network); foundation-funded, generally center-left donor base
- Texas officials confirm that some registered voters flagged as potential noncitizens by SAVE had already provided proof of citizenship — Votebeat · Nonprofit election-administration newsroom; foundation-funded
- U.S. Supreme Court allows use of expanded SAVE system ahead of the November elections — Ballotpedia · Nonprofit political encyclopedia; generally center
- US judge rules Trump administration's use of voter data unlawful — Al Jazeera · Funded by the government of Qatar
- Judge blocks DOJ from using national voter database to boot citizen voters — Courthouse News Service · Legal-news trade outlet; center
- Trump's DOJ Wanted State Voter Rolls, but a Judge Said Congress Never Authorized It — PJ Media · Conservative; owned by Salem Media Group
- Judge strikes down DOJ's policy of reviewing state voter rolls, saying it would "run roughshod over longstanding laws" — CBS News · Commercial broadcast network; center
- Sparkle L. Sooknanan — Wikipedia · Crowd-sourced encyclopedia