Kentucky Federal Judge Dismisses DOJ Lawsuit Over Unredacted Voter List
A federal judge dismissed the Justice Department’s Kentucky lawsuit seeking an unredacted statewide voter-registration list, but the department’s appeal keeps the dispute active.
A federal judge in Kentucky dismissed with prejudice the Justice Department’s lawsuit seeking the state’s unredacted statewide voter-registration list, ruling that Kentucky election officials did not violate the federal Civil Rights Act by refusing to produce it. The court also denied the department’s motion to compel, and the case was removed from the district court’s active docket.
The Justice Department appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on July 24, one day after the Eastern District of Kentucky issued its memorandum opinion and order. That appeal means the district-court ruling is currently in effect, but the legal dispute is not over.
The order applies to the district-court case against Kentucky Secretary of State Michael Adams, the Kentucky State Board of Elections and intervening defendants. It does not determine whether the Sixth Circuit will uphold the dismissal.
What the Justice Department requested
The Justice Department sought Kentucky’s statewide voter-registration list with all fields included. The court identified the requested information as including voters’ full names, dates of birth, addresses, driver’s-license numbers or the last four digits of Social Security numbers.
The department filed the Kentucky lawsuit on Feb. 26, 2026, after state officials declined to provide the requested file. In its lawsuit announcement, the department said it was seeking voter rolls as part of its oversight of voter-roll maintenance and federal election laws.
The court record does not show that Kentucky released any unredacted voter file. Instead, it says state officials rejected the department’s demands and sought assurances about compliance with privacy and data-security laws before the lawsuit was filed.
Why the judge dismissed the case
The decision turned on statutory interpretation and the wording of the Justice Department’s written demands. It was not a finding that Kentucky’s voter rolls are accurate or inaccurate.
First, the judge relied on binding Sixth Circuit precedent involving Michigan’s voter file. That precedent held that records created and maintained by election officials do not “come into” their possession for purposes of Title III of the Civil Rights Act. The Kentucky court said election officials create the state’s statewide voter-registration list rather than receive it from a third party.
Because Kentucky officials created the list, the judge concluded that it was not a record subject to the department’s Title III demand. The court applied the Sixth Circuit’s interpretation that “come into possession” means to acquire, obtain or receive a record from someone else, rather than create and maintain it.
The judge also found an independent problem with the department’s demands. Title III requires a written demand to state both the legal basis and the purpose for inspecting or copying election records.
According to the ruling, the first two letters referenced the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act but did not state the purpose required by the statute. A third letter referred to the Civil Rights Act and described a purpose, but did not state the legal basis for the request. The court concluded that none of the letters contained both required elements.
What the order means for Kentucky residents
For now, Kentucky officials are not required by the July 23 district-court order to produce the requested unredacted statewide file to the Justice Department. Residents should distinguish that result from voter-registration information that may be available through ordinary public-records processes. This case concerned a broader file containing sensitive identifying fields, and the court did not say that every voter record contains every field listed in the request.
The ruling also does not create a nationwide prohibition on federal access to voter records. It is a decision by a Kentucky federal district court applying Sixth Circuit precedent, and the Justice Department is challenging it on appeal.
What happens next
The Justice Department’s appeal is pending before the Sixth Circuit. A Spectrum News report published July 24 said court documents showed DOJ attorneys had filed the appeal. The appellate court could leave the dismissal in place, change the legal reasoning or issue further instructions.
There is no indication in the sources reviewed for this report that the Sixth Circuit has decided the appeal or stayed, reversed or affirmed the district court’s order. Kentucky residents should watch for appellate filings, any request for a stay or revised demand, and additional orders from the federal courts. Until further action, the July 23 district-court order remains the operative ruling in the Kentucky case.
Sources
- Eastern District of Kentucky memorandum opinion and order, July 23, 2026
- Spectrum News/NY1 report on the dismissal and appeal, July 24, 2026
- U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit announcement, Feb. 26, 2026
Discover more from Interactive News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
