Since September 2025 the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division has gone to court against 30 states and the District of Columbia, demanding the handover of unredacted voter rolls. These lists contain personal data on millions of citizens and have traditionally been the sole responsibility of state election officials. The push coincided with President Donald Trump’s drive to assert federal oversight of elections and to pursue alleged non-citizen voting. To date, 26 of the lawsuits have reached final rulings, four remain pending, and one state settled.
First wave of lawsuits – reliance on the March 2025 executive order
The initial seven filings all opened with the same premise: they cited Trump’s March 2025 executive order on election integrity as the basis for demanding state voter rolls. The government argued that the Justice Department needed the records to verify compliance with federal election statutes. In Maine, Judge Lance E. Walker a Trump appointee, dismissed the claim, noting that “the United States’ championing of its claims under the [election laws], in both its briefing and its presentation at the hearing on this matter, can only be described as halfhearted.” He added that no statute authorized the United States to compel Maine to produce its current unredacted list.
Similar conclusions emerged across the country. In California, Judge David O. Carter appointed by Bill Clinton, warned that the administration appeared to be using election law as a pretext to suppress voting, stating, “The foundation upon which American democracy has been built is the right to vote… The Court does not take lightly DOJ’s obfuscation of its true motives.” In Pennsylvania, Judge Cathy Bissoon a Barack Obama appointee, highlighted government statements that revealed an intent to create a nationwide voter database for potential weaponization and immigration enforcement. Oregon’s Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai appointed by Joe Biden, described the approach as “chilling” and said the presumption of regularity previously extended to the Justice Department “no longer holds.” All seven suits using this tactic were dismissed.
Second wave – invoking Title III of the 1960 Civil Rights Act
The remaining 19 cases pivoted to a different legal theory. Instead of the executive order, they invoked Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 which requires preservation of state and local election records. DOJ lawyers claimed the statute gave the Attorney General sweeping authority to obtain voter rolls to curb non-citizen voting. In reality, Title III was designed to protect voting rights, allowing the federal government to investigate practices that disenfranchised Black voters in the South.
Federal judges rejected this argument across the board. West Virginia’s Judge Thomas E. Johnston a George W. Bush appointee, wrote, “Clearly, this demand is devoid of any factual basis.” In Washington, D.C., Judge Randolph D. Moss also an Obama appointee, emphasized that Title III was the Justice Department’s answer to state officials who refused to retain records proving racial discrimination, not a tool to limit voting. Maryland’s Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher a Trump appointee, warned that the government’s interpretation would criminalize conduct that election laws already require, calling the reading “absurd.” Judge Bissoon summed up the misreading, saying the administration’s view “does violence” to the law’s meaning. All 19 suits grounded in Title III have been thrown out.
Judicial composition and outcomes
Among the judges who ruled on the 26 final cases, eight were appointed by Trump, four by George W. Bush, and fourteen by Democratic presidents. Despite partisan diversity, every judge concluded that the DOJ lacked both legal and factual justification for its demands. The rulings collectively underscore a judiciary unwilling to accept what it perceives as a politically motivated “fishing expedition” to build a nationwide voter database.
The Justice Department has appealed most of the defeats and signaled readiness to take the disputes to the Supreme Court. A departmental spokesperson defended the litigators, asserting they are “skilled, principled advocates who argue every case honestly and in good faith.” Nevertheless, the appellate record so far has upheld the district courts’ decisions, reinforcing the view that the DOJ’s tactics overstep statutory limits.
These courtroom battles illuminate a broader clash between federal ambitions to centralize election data and state sovereignty over voter registration. As the litigation landscape settles, the precedent set by the 26 rulings will likely shape future attempts—if any—to compel states to surrender confidential voter information to the federal government.
