Judge vacates DOJ policy for obtaining state voter rolls

A federal judge on Oct. 9, 2026, vacated the Justice Department’s policy for seeking state voter-registration lists, comparing voter information with federal citizenship-status data and urging states to remove people the department considered ineligible. The court found the policy unauthorized under the election laws DOJ cited and contrary to other federal requirements.

U.S. District Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan granted partial summary judgment to Common Cause and four individual voters in Common Cause et al. v. U.S. Department of Justice et al. She denied DOJ’s motion to dismiss and its alternative request for summary judgment. The case was decided by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

The policy and the legal challenge

The court’s opinion describes DOJ demands for statewide voter-registration lists from 49 states. The policy sought the lists for review against federal citizenship-status data and included efforts to have states remove people the department deemed ineligible. CBS News reported that 18 states fully cooperated with the requests.

Common Cause and the voter plaintiffs argued that DOJ lacked authority for the policy and had violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the Privacy Act and the Paperwork Reduction Act. DOJ relied on provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1960, the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act as authority for its actions.

Judge Sooknanan rejected DOJ’s interpretation of those election laws. She found that the cited provisions did not authorize the department’s broad requests for voter files, its planned processing and sharing of the data, or its efforts to have states remove voters. The court also found the policy arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act and contrary to the Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction Act. It set the policy aside under the Administrative Procedure Act.

The opinion also addressed the risk of wrongly removing eligible voters. The court found that the policy risked the removal of eligible U.S. citizens and referred to evidence that citizens had been removed from voter rolls. It said DOJ had not adequately considered that risk while relying on a database with known errors.

What the decision changes

The vacatur sets aside the challenged policy. CBS News reported that the ruling applies both to voter files DOJ had already received and to files it was still litigating to obtain. The court did not order DOJ to return or delete files it had received, and it did not grant additional injunctive relief.

The decision does not bar lawful federal support for states or states’ own voter-roll maintenance. It addresses the authority DOJ claimed for this policy; it does not change voter-eligibility rules. The opinion identifies Anthony Nel and Bailey Doe as voter plaintiffs. The judge did not reach the plaintiffs’ constitutional claims and said a separate order would issue.

DOJ said it was reviewing the decision, CBS News reported. The court did not order the department to return or delete voter files it had received.