A federal judge has dealt a major setback to the Trump Justice Department’s attempt to use the Civil Rights Act to acquire confidential voter data from states, ruling that the law does not authorize such demands. This decision blocks the administration’s request for sensitive information from California and challenges the legal basis for similar lawsuits across the country.
In a 33-page ruling on Thursday, U.S. District Judge David Carter dismissed the Justice Department’s lawsuit against California, calling its demand for unredacted voter data “unprecedented and illegal.” Carter, appointed by President Bill Clinton, emphasized that the Civil Rights Act of 1960 was intended to protect voters from disenfranchisement, not to enable federal fishing expeditions into private registration records. He warned that centralizing such information could chill voter registration and turnout, undermining the very rights the law was designed to safeguard.
The ruling comes amid a broader campaign by the Trump administration to obtain voter roll data from dozens of states, purportedly to help “clean” the rolls and ensure only eligible citizens are registered. The Justice Department, led by Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, has argued that the Civil Rights Act grants the attorney general broad authority to inspect election records without specifying a purpose. However, Carter rejected this interpretation, stating that the law requires a legitimate basis related to its statutory goals, which the DOJ failed to provide.
Parallel developments are unfolding in other states. Just a day before Carter’s ruling, U.S. District Judge Mustafa Kasubhai indicated he would dismiss a similar lawsuit against Oregon, though a final decision is pending. Oregon Secretary of State Tobias Read hailed the tentative ruling, asserting that the state successfully pushed back against federal overreach to protect citizens’ privacy. These legal roadblocks highlight the resistance from state officials, both Democratic and some Republican, who have refused to hand over sensitive data like Social Security numbers and driver’s license information.
The Justice Department’s strategy has evolved significantly since it first began demanding voter files last spring. Initially citing the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act, the department has increasingly relied on the Civil Rights Act after facing pushback under the other statutes. Voting rights experts note that this shift exposes the weakness of the earlier claims, as court precedents under NVRA and HAVA allow for redaction of sensitive information, whereas the Civil Rights Act provision is less litigated.
Reactions from voting rights advocates and election officials have been sharply critical of the DOJ’s efforts. Organizations like the ACLU and Campaign Legal Center, which have intervened in the cases, argue that the administration is misusing civil rights legislation to pursue a politically motivated agenda. They warn that sloppy data purges could disenfranchise eligible voters, particularly minorities, and that sharing voter data with agencies like Homeland Security raises additional privacy concerns.
The implications of Carter’s ruling are far-reaching. It not only stalls the administration’s efforts in California but also sets a precedent that could influence outcomes in other states where similar lawsuits are pending. The Justice Department has not immediately indicated whether it will appeal, but the decision forces a reevaluation of its legal approach. With the 2026 elections approaching, the battle over voter roll access underscores ongoing tensions between federal authority and state autonomy in election administration.
Ultimately, this judicial blow reaffirms the importance of privacy protections and proper legal standards in maintaining voter integrity. It serves as a check on executive power and highlights the judiciary’s role in interpreting laws as intended by Congress, rather than as tools for expansive data collection. As litigation continues, the outcome will shape how voter rolls are managed and who has access to Americans’ personal information in the electoral process.
