Federal Judge Dismisses DOJ Lawsuit Seeking Rhode Island Voter Data, What It Means

A federal judge in Providence dismissed the Trump administration’s lawsuit demanding the private voter records of nearly 750,000 Rhode Islanders on April 17, 2026 — the fifth consecutive court loss for the Department of Justice in an unprecedented nationwide campaign to collect unredacted voter data from states across the country. The ruling adds to a mounting pattern of judicial resistance that now spans California, Michigan, Oregon, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, with appeals already underway and the November 2026 midterms approaching fast.

Quick Facts

Field	Detail
Case Name	United States v. Gregg Amore (Rhode Island Secretary of State)
Court	U.S. District Court, District of Rhode Island, Providence
Judge	U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy
Decision Date	April 17, 2026
Outcome	DOJ lawsuit dismissed
Data Demanded	Unredacted voter files: names, addresses, dates of birth, driver’s license numbers, last four digits of Social Security numbers
Voters Affected	~750,000 registered Rhode Island voters
DOJ Legal Basis Cited	Civil Rights Act of 1960; National Voter Registration Act; Help America Vote Act
Why Dismissed	DOJ failed to provide factual basis for why it needed the records, as required by law
States Also Dismissed	California (Jan. 15, 2026), Michigan (Feb. 10, 2026), Oregon (Feb. 5, 2026), Massachusetts (Apr. 9, 2026)
Total States Sued	30 states + Washington, D.C.
DOJ Appeals Filed	Yes — California, Oregon, Michigan appealed; 9th Circuit oral argument May 19, 2026

Current Status & What Happens Next

• The ruling by U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy in Providence marked the latest in a series of legal setbacks for the Justice Department’s efforts, after judges ruled against similar requests in California, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Oregon.
• The Justice Department has appealed the Oregon, California, and Michigan dismissals. Oral argument in the Oregon 9th Circuit appeal is scheduled for May 19, 2026. Appellate rulings in those cases could reshape the legal landscape before the November 2026 midterm elections.
• The DOJ has reached a settlement with at least one state, Oklahoma, with the state agreeing to provide its sensitive voter data in exchange for the DOJ dismissing its lawsuit. That outcome illustrates the negotiated path the administration has pursued with cooperative states.

What Did the DOJ Demand — and Why Did Rhode Island Refuse?

Beginning in May 2025, the Trump administration launched an unprecedented campaign to collect detailed voter registration data from every state in the country. The request demanded not only publicly available voter data such as names and addresses, but also sensitive information including driver’s license and Social Security numbers — data considered highly sensitive because it can be used to commit identity theft, access financial or government records, and facilitate targeted harassment or intimidation if mishandled or leaked.

Rhode Island Secretary of State Gregg Amore, a Democrat, offered to provide a copy of the state’s publicly available voter registration list but declined to provide unredacted data. The DOJ then filed a lawsuit in December 2025 to force Rhode Island to hand over the full unredacted file.

During a March 26, 2026, hearing, DOJ attorney Eric Neff told Judge McElroy that the department wanted the information to ensure Rhode Island’s voter list is “clean” and to flag anyone who should be purged. He said the process would include sharing the data with the Department of Homeland Security to confirm whether registered voters are citizens. DHS has recently expanded its Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program specifically for this purpose.

Related article: Hyundai Recalls 46,787 Palisade SUVs, Third-Row Seat Belt May Show “Buckled” Even When It’s Not

What Did the Judge Decide — and Why?

Judge McElroy called the DOJ’s request to Rhode Island “unprecedented” and concluded the department lacked authority under the National Voter Registration Act or the Help America Vote Act to conduct “the kind of fishing expedition it seeks here.”

The DOJ relied primarily on a provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 — a law passed to combat racial discrimination in elections — to demand the records. McElroy said that while the law does not limit its application to examining discrimination, the department must provide a factual basis for why it needs the voting records, which it failed to do in Rhode Island’s case.

The ACLU and the ACLU of Rhode Island represented three Rhode Island voters and Common Cause, who intervened as defendants to protect voter privacy. The organizations argued the DOJ’s efforts appear connected to an attempt to build a national voter database without congressional authorization.

The Justice Department declined to comment on the ruling.

Related article: FTC and Eight States Settle With Dentsu, WPP, and Publicis Over Alleged Collusion to Cut Ad Revenue From Conservative Websites

How Each Dismissed Case Was Different

Courts across five states have now rejected the DOJ’s voter data demands, but their reasoning has varied — and those differences will matter significantly on appeal.

In California, the federal judge said the administration may not unilaterally usurp authority over elections, which the Constitution gives to states and Congress. In Michigan, the judge found that the laws the DOJ cited do not require disclosure of the voter records it sought. In Oregon, the judge said the federal government was not entitled to unredacted voter registration lists containing sensitive data.

In Massachusetts, Judge Leo Sorokin ruled the DOJ failed to include a statement explaining why the Attorney General demanded production of the records — a specific procedural requirement of the 1960 Civil Rights Act. Rhode Island’s ruling similarly turned on the DOJ’s failure to provide an adequate factual justification.

A federal judge in Georgia dismissed a separate DOJ lawsuit because it was filed in the wrong city. The federal government refiled that case in the correct venue, and it remains pending.

The Scope of the Campaign: 30 States and Counting

The Rhode Island case is one piece of a sprawling national legal offensive. The DOJ has sued Washington, D.C., and 30 states for refusing to provide statewide voter registration lists with driver’s license and Social Security numbers: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Washington.

At least 12 states have either provided or promised to provide their detailed voter registration lists to the department, according to the Brennan Center: Alaska, Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming. These are primarily Republican-led states. The states that refused — and face active litigation — are primarily Democratic-led.

With appeals proceeding, and at least one on an expedited basis, appellate decisions could be issued before the November 2026 midterm elections. Given the national importance of these cases and the legal questions at stake, Supreme Court review appears likely.

What Data Was at Stake — and Why Does It Matter?

Understanding exactly what data the DOJ demanded helps frame why states pushed back so hard.

The DOJ sought the statewide voter file including registered voters’ full names, residential addresses, dates of birth, driver’s license numbers, and the last four digits of Social Security numbers. States declined to provide this data, citing state privacy laws, and offered redacted versions instead.

Most of this information already appears in publicly available voter rolls — but the driver’s license numbers and partial Social Security numbers do not. Those fields are specifically protected under state privacy laws in many jurisdictions because combining them with names and addresses creates a profile detailed enough to facilitate identity theft, unauthorized database matching, or voter intimidation. Privacy advocates have warned that once this data leaves state control and enters federal systems, the safeguards governing its use — and potential misuse — are unclear.

Important Timeline

Date	Event
May 2025	DOJ begins sending demand letters to states for unredacted voter files
Summer–Fall 2025	First wave of DOJ lawsuits filed against states refusing to comply
December 2025	DOJ files lawsuit against Rhode Island; ACLU and Common Cause seek to intervene
January 15, 2026	California DOJ lawsuit dismissed
January 26, 2026	Oregon DOJ lawsuit dismissed at hearing
February 5, 2026	Oregon written dismissal order issued
February 10, 2026	Michigan DOJ lawsuit dismissed
February 25–26, 2026	DOJ appeals California, Oregon, Michigan rulings; also files five new lawsuits
March 26, 2026	Hearing in Rhode Island case; DOJ reveals DHS SAVE database sharing intent
April 9, 2026	Massachusetts DOJ lawsuit dismissed (fifth dismissal)
April 17, 2026	Rhode Island DOJ lawsuit dismissed
May 19, 2026	9th Circuit oral argument in Oregon appeal (scheduled)
November 2026	Midterm elections — potential deadline driving DOJ urgency
TBD	Supreme Court review — widely anticipated

Frequently Asked Questions

What exactly did the DOJ want from Rhode Island?

 The DOJ sought to force Rhode Island to turn over non-public data on nearly 750,000 registered voters, including driver’s license numbers and the last four digits of their Social Security numbers, which the Trump administration said it needed to probe election integrity. Rhode Island had already offered a publicly available version of its voter rolls but refused to hand over the sensitive unredacted fields.

Why did the judge throw out the case?

 Judge McElroy found the DOJ failed to provide a factual basis for why it needed the voting records, a requirement imposed by the Civil Rights Act of 1960. She called the demand “unprecedented” and said the law does not permit the department to conduct the kind of broad data collection it sought.

What law did the DOJ use — and is it the right one? 

The DOJ leaned primarily on the Civil Rights Act of 1960, a statute originally enacted to help detect racial discrimination in elections. Judges in Oregon, California, and Rhode Island have said that law is not a sufficient basis for the kind of voter data collection the DOJ pursued. The judge in Michigan ruled on different grounds, finding that the 1960 law does not cover the specific type of statewide voter lists the federal government sought. The DOJ also cited the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act, both of which courts have also rejected as authorization for these demands.

Is the DOJ done trying — or will it keep fighting?

 The DOJ is actively appealing all three early dismissals. Appellate decisions in the California, Oregon, and Michigan cases could be issued before the November 2026 midterm elections. Given the national importance of these cases and the legal questions at stake, Supreme Court review appears likely.

Does this ruling protect me as a Rhode Island voter? 

For now, yes. The dismissal means the DOJ cannot legally compel Rhode Island to hand over your driver’s license number or Social Security number from voter files under the terms of its current lawsuit. However, the DOJ retains the right to refile with a better legal basis, and appellate courts may yet rule in the administration’s favor.

Which states handed over their data voluntarily? 

At least 12 states have either provided or promised to provide their detailed voter registration lists to the DOJ: Alaska, Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming. These states did so without litigation. Oklahoma also formally settled its lawsuit with the DOJ in exchange for dismissal.

What would happen if the data were shared with DHS? 

The DOJ’s stated intention was to run the voter registration data against the DHS SAVE database to check the citizenship status of registered voters. Civil rights organizations have raised concerns that this cross-referencing process could generate false matches, particularly for naturalized citizens and others whose records in government databases contain errors, and could be used to improperly challenge or purge legitimate voter registrations.

Could this reach the Supreme Court? 

Given the national importance of these cases and the competing legal questions involving federal authority over state election records, the Constitution’s allocation of election administration to states, and federal civil rights law, Supreme Court review appears likely. The outcome could shape how elections are administered across the country heading into 2026 and beyond.

Last Updated: April 18, 2026

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Legal claims and outcomes depend on specific facts and applicable law. For advice regarding a particular situation, consult a qualified attorney.