On a recent Friday in Washington, U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan issued a sweeping decision that dismantles the Justice Department’s attempt to run a nationwide voter-list verification scheme. The ruling declares that the department overstepped the powers granted by the Civil Rights Act of 1960 the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act and that its reliance on the Department of Homeland Security’s SAVE database violated federal privacy statutes.
The judgment does more than block a single subpoena; it nullifies the entire policy the DOJ called its “list maintenance project.” By vacating the policy, the court prevents the department from using any voter files it has already obtained—whether the files came from the 18 states that cooperated or from subsequent requests to the remaining jurisdictions.
How the DOJ’s program was structured
According to the court record, the Justice Department demanded unredacted voter rolls from all 49 states and the District of Columbia. The request covered names, birthdates, home addresses, driver’s-license numbers and Social Security numbers. At least 18 states complied, turning over massive datasets that the department then fed into the SAVE system, a tool originally designed to verify immigration status for benefit programs.
Once the data entered SAVE, the department flagged any registrant whose record suggested non-citizenship. Those flags were transmitted to Homeland Security Investigations the investigative arm of ICE, and to the broader Department of Homeland Security. Participating states agreed to “clean” their rolls within 45 days of receiving a list of potentially ineligible voters, removing the flagged names and sending updated files back to the DOJ.
Legal missteps identified by the court
Judge Sooknanan found that none of the statutes the DOJ invoked authorized a uniform, nationwide regime of voter-file extraction and citizenship verification. Moreover, the judge highlighted the department’s failure to assess the risk of misidentifying lawful citizens as non-citizens. The ruling cites evidence that the SAVE database contains outdated or erroneous records, leading to the removal of legitimate voters in past iterations of the program.
The opinion also dismissed the DOJ’s privacy argument that individuals on state voter rolls could be treated as “subjects” of a federal investigation simply by virtue of registration. The judge labeled that interpretation “nonsensical” and underscored that ordinary Americans would not consider themselves under investigation merely because they are eligible to vote.
Reactions from advocates and legal experts
The decision was hailed by voting-rights groups as a major victory. Common Cause the organization that brought the suit, said the ruling protects millions of citizens from wrongful disenfranchisement. Four plaintiffs—Anthony Nel, Haley Smith, Linda Duckworth and Ruth Nasrullah—had their registrations cancelled after their home states supplied data to the DOJ. Nel’s case, for example, involved a notice that he was identified by SAVE as a non-citizen, prompting a cancellation that was only reversed after he renewed an expired passport.
Former DOJ civil-rights official Justin Levitt amplified the impact on social media, noting that the decision effectively confirms that the officials who collected the files for the DOJ may have committed federal crimes. “This is a big deal,” Levitt wrote, emphasizing the potential criminal liability for anyone who mishandled the data.
Broader implications for election administration
While the ruling bars the federal government from imposing its own nationwide database, it does not prevent states from maintaining their own voter rolls or using the SAVE system independently. Judge Sooknanan clarified that the decision does not open the door for ineligible voters to cast ballots; it merely restores the balance between state authority and federal overreach.
The judgment also adds to a growing body of case law. At the time of the ruling, at least 25 federal district courts had dismissed similar DOJ lawsuits, and a federal appeals court had affirmed one dismissal. By striking down the policy under the Administrative Procedure Act the court set a precedent that the Justice Department cannot force states to surrender sensitive voter information without clear statutory authority.
In a statement, Common Cause President and CEO Virginia Kase Solomón called the outcome a “victory for voters,” urging the Trump administration to cease attempts to harvest private voter data. The Justice Department announced it is reviewing the decision, but no immediate appeal has been filed.
It reminds federal agencies that even well-intentioned efforts to bolster “election integrity” must respect constitutional limits and the privacy rights of American citizens.
