Federal Judge Blocks DOJ Voter-Roll Checks, What the Ruling Means for Voters and Their Privacy

On October 9, 2026, U.S. District Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan ruled in Common Cause v. U.S. Department of Justice that the Justice Department’s nationwide voter-list policy was unlawful. In a 78-page opinion, she vacated a program under which DOJ collected statewide voter registration lists, shared them with other federal agencies, ran them against federal immigration and citizenship records, and pressed states to remove people flagged as possibly ineligible.

The ruling does not legalize noncitizen voting, does not stop states from running their own lawful list maintenance, and does not automatically restore every registration already canceled. What it does is strike down one specific federal program on four separate legal grounds.

Quick Facts: DOJ Voter-Roll Ruling

Detail	What the court record shows
Case	Common Cause v. U.S. Department of Justice
Case number	No. 1:26-cv-01352
Court	U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Judge	U.S. District Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan
Decision date	October 9, 2026 (78-page opinion)
Lawsuit filed	April 2026
Plaintiffs	Common Cause, the Common Cause Education Fund, and four individual U.S. citizen voters
Defendants	U.S. Department of Justice and federal officials, including DHS and USCIS officials
Challenged policy	DOJ’s “Voter List Maintenance Policy” (also called the NVRA List Maintenance Project): collecting unredacted statewide voter lists, sharing them, checking them against SAVE and seeking removals
Outcome	Policy set aside and vacated under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
Grounds	Lack of statutory authority; arbitrary and capricious decision-making; Privacy Act violations; Paperwork Reduction Act violations
Does it stop states from maintaining their own rolls?	No
Does it legalize noncitizen voting?	No
Does it automatically restore every canceled registration?	No
What happens next?	An appeal to the D.C. Circuit is widely expected; check the docket for updates

What Did the Federal Court Rule?

Judge Sooknanan granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs, denied DOJ’s motion to dismiss, and vacated the policy under the APA. According to reporting on the order, the relief reaches the policy nationwide, including data DOJ had already obtained from cooperating states, and directs the agencies involved to stop collecting, maintaining, using or disclosing statewide voter list data under the policy.

The judge held that the policy failed on four independent grounds:

1. No statutory authority. The three laws DOJ relied on did not authorize the program.
2. Arbitrary and capricious. DOJ did not adequately weigh the risk that the data it relied on would wrongly flag eligible citizens.
3. Privacy Act violations. The program disclosed and maintained personal records in ways the Privacy Act does not allow.
4. Paperwork Reduction Act violations. DOJ collected information on a massive scale without required review and clearance.

In explaining the first point, the judge wrote that it would “turn these voter-protection laws on their head” to read them as authorizing DOJ’s unprecedented program. She also stressed who holds the power over voter registration, writing that Congress has left the authority to decide who votes with the states.

The court also made clear what it did not decide. The decision does not bar the federal government from lawful steps to support accurate voter rolls, does not stop states from their own list maintenance, and does not authorize ineligible people to vote.

What Was the DOJ Trying to Do?

The policy grew out of the administration’s push to expand federal involvement in election administration ahead of the November 3, 2026 midterms. In March 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14248, Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections, which directed federal agencies to take steps on citizenship verification and information sharing with state election officials. A further executive order on citizenship verification followed in March 2026.

Beginning in May 2025, DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, led by Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, asked states for complete statewide voter registration lists. These lists typically contain names, home addresses, dates of birth, driver’s license numbers, full or partial Social Security numbers and voting history. The court’s opinion counts 41 statewide lists sought through the policy, while press accounts describe requests reaching nearly every state and the District of Columbia.

According to the court record and reporting, the program worked in these steps:

• DOJ requested unredacted statewide voter registration lists.
• At least 18 states voluntarily handed over data.
• DOJ shared the records with the Department of Homeland Security and contractors.
• DHS ran the records through the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system, and in some cases other federal records.
• DOJ notified states of flagged names and urged them to remove those voters.

States that refused were sued. DOJ filed more than 30 lawsuits against states that would not provide unredacted lists, and by the time of the ruling it had reportedly lost 26 of them without a win.

Related article: International Students Face New CPT Uncertainty as Universities Sue DHS, What F-1 Students Need to Know

Why Did the Court Reject DOJ’s Legal Authority?

DOJ pointed to three federal laws. The court rejected each as a basis for this program.

Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 (52 U.S.C. §§ 20701–20706)

Title III requires election officials to keep federal election records for 22 months (§ 20701). Section 20703 lets the Attorney General demand those records in writing, but the demand must state “the basis and the purpose therefor.” Section 20705 sends enforcement disputes to the federal district courts.

DOJ treated this as a license to gather entire voter lists for a nationwide identity-matching project. The court concluded the statute’s record-inspection power is narrower than that. It is a tool for investigating specific records, not a basis for building a national database of voters to be cross-checked and purged.

National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (52 U.S.C. §§ 20501–20511)

The NVRA protects voter registration and sets the rules for list maintenance. Key provisions include:

• § 20507(a)(4): states must make a reasonable effort to remove people who are ineligible because of death or a change of residence.
• § 20507(b): list maintenance programs must be uniform, nondiscriminatory and consistent with the Voting Rights Act.
• § 20507(c)(2)(A): the 90-day rule. A state may not complete any program whose purpose is to systematically remove ineligible voters within 90 days of a federal election. For the November 3, 2026 election, that window opened on August 5, 2026.
• § 20507(i): records of list maintenance programs must be available for public inspection.
• § 20510: a private right of action, generally requiring written notice to the chief election official first (90 days, or 20 days if the violation occurs within 120 days of a federal election, with no notice needed within 30 days of the election).
• § 20511: criminal penalties for interfering with registration or voting.

The court held the NVRA gives DOJ no authority to run a national list-matching program. The statute assigns list maintenance to the states.

Help America Vote Act of 2002 (52 U.S.C. §§ 20901–21145)

HAVA requires each state to keep a computerized statewide voter registration list (§ 21083) and sets verification steps, including checks against driver’s license and Social Security numbers for registration applicants. Section 21111 lets the Attorney General sue to enforce HAVA’s minimum requirements.

DOJ argued these provisions supported its demand. The court disagreed: HAVA regulates what states must maintain and gives DOJ a way to enforce those requirements. It does not authorize DOJ to pull state lists into federal systems and run its own eligibility screening.

The Elections Clause backdrop (U.S. Const. art. I, § 4, cl. 1)

The Constitution gives state legislatures the first role in setting the “Times, Places and Manner” of congressional elections, and gives Congress power to “make or alter” those rules. The Supreme Court has described Congress’s power under this clause as a power to preempt state rules by statute, as in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. (2013). The practical point is that a federal agency may act only where Congress has given it the power. Without a statute that authorizes the program, the default rule is that states run voter registration.

Why Was the Policy Arbitrary and Capricious?

Under the APA, a court must set aside agency action that is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law” (5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)). An agency must consider the important aspects of a problem and explain its choices.

The court found the record showed DOJ did not adequately consider a well-documented risk: that SAVE and related citizenship data, including Social Security Administration records, contain errors. The judge said DOJ “downplayed the risk of voter disenfranchisement despite knowingly relying on an inaccurate database.” A 2006 Social Security Administration audit had found roughly 3.3 million U.S. citizens misidentified as noncitizens in related records.

How Did the Policy Violate the Privacy Act of 1974?

The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) controls how federal agencies collect, keep, use and share personal records in a “system of records.” The court found the policy violated several of its requirements:

• Disclosure limits (§ 552a(b)): agencies generally may not disclose records without the person’s consent unless an exception applies. The court found DOJ’s sharing of voter data with other agencies and contractors was not justified under the exceptions it asserted.
• Accuracy (§ 552a(e)(5)): an agency must maintain records with the accuracy and completeness needed to be fair to the individual. The court found DOJ made no reasonable effort to ensure that.
• First Amendment records (§ 552a(e)(7)): agencies may not keep records describing how a person exercises First Amendment rights unless a narrow exception applies. The court treated voter registration as protected activity.
• System of records notices (§ 552a(e)(4) and (e)(11)): an agency must publish notice of its systems and any new routine uses. The court found DOJ could not rely on an older notice to cover a new national voter database.

Violations of the Privacy Act in a system-level challenge like this one were reviewed through the APA. Individual claims for damages are a separate matter, covered in the FAQ below.

Why Did the Paperwork Reduction Act Matter?

The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. §§ 3501–3521) requires agencies to get approval from the Office of Management and Budget and display a control number before they collect information from ten or more people (§ 3507). It also reduces the burden placed on the public. The court found DOJ’s mass collection of state voter data skipped those required reviews and clearances.

The SAVE Database and the Accuracy Problem

SAVE is run by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. It was built decades ago so benefit-granting agencies could check the immigration status of applicants. In 2025 the administration expanded it to accept bulk uploads and to draw on Social Security data, so it could be used to check whole voter rolls instead of individual applicants.

The accuracy problem is most serious for:

• Naturalized citizens, whose older records may not reflect citizenship obtained later.
• People who changed names after marriage.
• Older Americans with incomplete records.
• People with foreign-born names or mismatched identifying data.

A failed match is not proof of noncitizenship. Examples from litigation and reporting include:

• Texas: SAVE flagged 2,724 potential noncitizens among more than 18 million registered voters. Later review reportedly confirmed that 578 of them, about 21 percent, were actually citizens.
• Utah: Of roughly 2.07 million records reviewed, only 52 were confirmed or probable noncitizens, about 0.0025 percent.
• Anthony Nel (Texas): a U.S. citizen and plaintiff in the case whose registration was canceled after a SAVE flag. He regained it only after providing proof.

Separate SAVE litigation

The ruling should not be confused with a separate case over the expanded SAVE system. In that case, brought by the League of Women Voters against DHS, the same judge ruled on June 22, 2026 that the expanded system violated the Privacy Act, the Social Security Act and the APA. The Supreme Court temporarily paused that order in September 2026, allowing limited continued use while the litigation goes on. The October 9 ruling is a different decision, aimed at DOJ’s broader collection-and-purge policy.

Does the Ruling Mean Noncitizens Can Vote?

No. Noncitizen voting is illegal under federal and state law, and the ruling changes none of that:

• 18 U.S.C. § 611 makes it a federal crime for a noncitizen to vote in a federal election.
• 18 U.S.C. § 1015(f) makes it a crime to falsely claim U.S. citizenship in order to register or vote.
• 52 U.S.C. § 10307(c) (Voting Rights Act) penalizes false information in registering or voting.
• 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(10)(D) and 1227(a)(6) make unlawful voting a ground of inadmissibility and deportability.

Studies and state audits describe noncitizen voting as statistically rare. The legal question in this case was never whether noncitizens may vote. It was whether DOJ had lawful power to run this particular program and whether it followed federal privacy and information-collection laws.

The 90-Day Rule and Election Timing

The NVRA’s 90-day rule (§ 20507(c)(2)(A)) bars systematic removal programs close to a federal election, because errors made close to Election Day leave little time to correct them. Exceptions include removals at the voter’s request, removals for criminal conviction or mental incapacity as provided by state law, removals for death, and individualized removals based on specific information about a particular person.

Courts have applied the rule to citizenship-based purges. In Arcia v. Florida Secretary of State (11th Cir. 2014), the court held that Florida’s program to remove suspected noncitizens within the 90-day window violated the NVRA. In October 2024, the Supreme Court allowed Virginia to continue removals pending appeal in an unexplained order, which shows that the question remains contested.

Because the DOJ policy sought to push states toward large-scale removals right before the 2026 midterms, the timing was a central concern for the plaintiffs and the court’s discussion of harm.

What Does the Decision Mean for States That Shared Voter Data?

The opinion vacates the policy as the legal basis for the collection-and-matching process. It does not automatically resolve every separate data-sharing agreement, state decision or individual registration record. It also does not mean all shared data has already been deleted. How agencies comply, what happens to data already received and any later orders should be checked against the docket and official statements.

For state election officials, the ruling reinforces three points:

• Rely on lawful authority before sharing sensitive voter data with federal agencies.
• Follow NVRA safeguards, including the 90-day rule, before removing anyone.
• Treat a database mismatch as a reason to investigate and verify, not as proof of ineligibility.

What Should Voters Do If They Were Removed or Flagged?

The ruling does not restore registrations automatically. If you are unsure of your status:

1. Check your registration through your state’s official election website or your local election office.
2. Ask why your status changed if it shows as inactive or canceled, and what process corrects it.
3. Keep proof of citizenship and registration ready, and ask which documents your state accepts and how to submit them.
4. Check deadlines. Registration, correction and ballot deadlines vary by state, and the federal ruling does not extend them.
5. Ask for a provisional ballot if your name is missing from the poll book on Election Day, and ask what follow-up is needed under state law.
6. Keep copies of every notice and message you receive.

You do not need to wait for the federal case to finish before checking your status. Voters who face a deadline or believe they were unlawfully denied the right to vote may wish to contact an election-law attorney or a voting-rights organization.

For more on the wider legal picture, read Voting Rules and Legal Challenges Ahead of the 2026 Midterms, The Complete Picture.

Can Voters Sue If Their Registration Was Wrongly Canceled?

Possibly, but it depends on the facts, the defendant and the law involved. The four individual plaintiffs in this case joined Common Cause and the court found they had standing. That does not make every affected voter a party or entitle them to damages.

Options that may be available include:

• State correction or review processes, which are often the fastest route.
• NVRA claims under 52 U.S.C. § 20510(b), which generally require written notice to the chief state election official before suit.
• Privacy Act claims under 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g). Damages are limited and generally require proof of actual harm and an intentional or willful violation, so a violation alone does not guarantee compensation.
• State election laws and other federal voting-rights protections.

Key Dates and Procedural Timeline

Date	Event
March 2025	Executive Order 14248 issued on election integrity
May 2025	DOJ’s Civil Rights Division begins requesting unredacted voter lists from states
March 2026	Further executive order on citizenship verification in federal elections
April 2026	Common Cause and four voters file suit against DOJ
May 12, 2026	DOJ Office of Legal Counsel issues an opinion on its authority to obtain and share statewide voter roll data
June 22, 2026	Separate ruling in the SAVE case blocks the expanded SAVE system
August 5, 2026	NVRA 90-day window before the November 3 election begins
September 2026	Supreme Court temporarily pauses the June 22 SAVE order
October 9, 2026	Judge Sooknanan vacates DOJ’s voter-list maintenance policy
November 3, 2026	Midterm elections

What Happens Next?

The October 9 decision is a district-court ruling. An appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is widely expected, and DOJ has said it is reviewing the decision. DOJ could ask for a stay pending appeal, but a stay requires meeting demanding legal standards. The parties could also seek clarification from the district court on how the vacatur is implemented, and related lawsuits over voter data and SAVE will continue separately.

The ruling does not reverse every individual removal that has already occurred. Affected citizens may seek reinstatement through their state’s process. The outcome of any appeal should not be assumed, and the district court’s ruling remains the key decision unless a later order changes it.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the federal judge block on October 9, 2026?

Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan vacated DOJ’s policy of collecting statewide voter registration lists, sharing them with federal agencies and contractors, checking them against SAVE and seeking removal of voters considered ineligible.

Why did the judge rule against DOJ?

She found that the statutes DOJ cited did not authorize the program, that DOJ failed to adequately consider the risk of wrongly flagging eligible voters, and that it violated the Privacy Act and the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Was this an injunction?

The court’s remedy was vacatur under the APA, which sets the policy aside, rather than a standard injunction. The practical effect is that DOJ and the agencies involved cannot continue the policy.

Does the ruling apply to all states?

The court vacated the policy itself, and reporting indicates the relief applies nationwide. How it affects each state’s past agreements or previously shared data depends on the judgment and later orders.

Can DOJ still investigate voter fraud?

Yes. The ruling rejects one specific program. DOJ keeps its lawful authority to investigate and enforce federal election laws, but any action needs a valid legal basis.

Can states still check whether voters are U.S. citizens?

States may use lawful processes to maintain accurate rolls, subject to the NVRA’s safeguards and state law. The decision does not prohibit all citizenship checks.

Is SAVE now illegal?

No. The October 9 decision invalidated DOJ’s voter-list policy and did not declare every use of SAVE unlawful. Separate litigation covers the expanded SAVE system.

Does the ruling restore canceled registrations?

Not automatically. Voters should check their status with their state or local election office and use the process for correcting records.

Can a voter receive compensation for a wrongful removal?

Not automatically. A claim depends on the facts and the legal basis, and the October 9 judgment did not award damages to affected voters.

Where can I read the court decision?

The full memorandum opinion is listed in the Sources section below.

Sources and Legal References

1. Court opinion: Common Cause v. U.S. Department of Justice, No. 1:26-cv-01352 (D.D.C. Oct. 9, 2026), Document 51, Memorandum Opinion. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2026cv01352/291580/51/
2. DOJ Office of Legal Counsel: Authority to Obtain and Share Statewide Voter Roll Data (May 12, 2026). https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/authority-obtain-and-share-statewide-voter-roll-data
3. Executive Order 14248: Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections (March 2025).
4. White House: Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections (March 2026). https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/03/ensuring-citizenship-verification-and-integrity-in-federal-elections/
5. U.S. Constitution, art. I, § 4, cl. 1 (Elections Clause).
6. Civil Rights Act of 1960 (Title III): 52 U.S.C. §§ 20701–20706. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/chapter-207
7. National Voter Registration Act: 52 U.S.C. §§ 20501–20511, including § 20507. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/20507
8. Help America Vote Act: 52 U.S.C. §§ 20901–21145, including §§ 21083 and 21111. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/chapter-209
9. Privacy Act of 1974: 5 U.S.C. § 552a. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552a
10. Paperwork Reduction Act: 44 U.S.C. §§ 3501–3521. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/44/chapter-35
11. Administrative Procedure Act: 5 U.S.C. § 706. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/706
12. Federal crimes related to noncitizen voting: 18 U.S.C. §§ 611 and 1015(f); 52 U.S.C. § 10307(c); 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(10)(D) and 1227(a)(6).
13. Case law: Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., 570 U.S. 1 (2013); Arcia v. Florida Secretary of State, 772 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir. 2014).
14. Related AllAboutLawyer coverage: Voting Rules and Legal Challenges Ahead of the 2026 Midterms, The Complete Picture.

Verification note: This article is based primarily on the October 9 district-court opinion and the statutes cited. Figures for Texas, Utah, the 2006 SSA audit and the number of cooperating states come from litigation filings and press reporting rather than the opinion alone. 

Disclaimer: This article provides general legal information and is not legal advice. It explains the court’s decision and relevant statutes without determining any individual voter’s eligibility or legal claim.