Full Breakdown
Federal Courts Block DOJ’s Bid for Unredacted Voter Rolls
6/25/2026, 2:28:08 AM
Judicial Defeat of DOJ’s Voter-Data Demands
On June 24 2026 the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the Justice Department (DOJ) cannot compel Michigan to turn over its confidential voter-registration file. The panel held that the 1960 Civil Rights Act’s Title III does not cover a state-generated “qualified voter file.” The decision affirms a district-court order by Judge Hala Jarbou and marks the first appellate rejection of the DOJ’s nationwide effort to obtain unredacted voter rolls. A week earlier, U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher dismissed the DOJ’s suit against Maryland, finding the same statutory limitation. Both rulings deny the DOJ access to names, birth dates, driver’s-license numbers and partial Social Security numbers held by the states.
Background: DOJ’s Nationwide Campaign
Since the summer of 2025 the DOJ has sent letters to nearly every state and the District of Columbia demanding their complete voter files, citing the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) and the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). The department argues the data are needed to verify that states are removing ineligible voters and to compare rolls with a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) system for citizenship verification. The campaign, driven by President Donald Trump’s claim of 2020 election fraud, has faced uniform defeat in nine district courts and now in a federal appellate court.
Key Figures and Institutions
- Justice Department – led the lawsuits, asserting authority under Title III.
- President Donald Trump – promoted “nationalizing” elections and signed related executive orders.
- Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson – defended the state-created file.
- Maryland Election Administrator Jared DeMarinis – rejected the DOJ’s request as unauthorized.
- Circuit Judges Andre Mathis, R. Guy Cole Jr., John Nalbandian – authored the majority and dissenting opinions.
- District Judges Hala Jarbou, Stephanie Gallagher – issued the underlying rulings.
- Civil-rights groups – ACLU, Common Cause, Out for Justice intervened on privacy grounds.
Timeline of Major Rulings
- July 2025 – DOJ letters request unredacted rolls from all states.
- Late 2025 – Michigan and Maryland refuse; lawsuits filed.
- June 10 2026 – Judge Gallagher dismisses Maryland suit with prejudice.
- June 24 2026 – 6th Circuit affirms Michigan district-court order; first appellate decision.
- Pending – Appeals in the 2nd, 4th, and 9th Circuits.
Data and Statistics
- DOJ sued 30 states + D.C. for voter files.
- Nine district courts have ruled against the DOJ; 13 states have provided or promised data (Alaska, Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Wyoming).
- The contested files contain names, birth dates, driver’s-license numbers, and partial Social Security numbers for all registered voters.
Why It Matters: Voter Privacy and Federal Authority
The rulings limit federal overreach into state-run elections, preserve sensitive personal data, and curb the creation of a national voter database that could be vulnerable to hacking or misuse. They also signal judicial resistance to the administration’s strategy to reshape election administration ahead of the November 2026 midterms.
Official Statements & Responses
- The DOJ maintains the request is necessary for HAVA and NVRA compliance and to support DHS citizenship checks.
- Secretary Benson argued Michigan’s file is a state-generated record not covered by Title III.
- Administrator DeMarinis asserted the Constitution assigns election administration to states and protects voter privacy.
- Judges Mathis and Cole emphasized the narrow text of Title III, while Judge Nalbandian dissented, interpreting the statute to require disclosure of government-generated voter lists.
Criticism & Opposition
Privacy advocates warn that sharing the data with DHS could generate false positives, especially for naturalized citizens, leading to wrongful disenfranchisement. Civil-rights groups describe the DOJ’s effort as an “unprecedented and unlawful national voter database” that threatens participation and trust in democracy.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
Sources differ on the exact number of states that have complied: Reuters cites 17 Republican-led states that voluntarily shared data, while the Brennan Center reports 13 states that have provided or promised data. No court has yet ruled on the DOJ’s claim that the data are essential for “list-maintenance” compliance.
Verbatim Quotes
- “Back then, the government used this power to ensure that everyone who had the right to vote could freely exercise that right,” — Andre Mathis, Circuit Judge
- “Title III's narrow text cannot withstand the weight of the government's broad request.” — Circuit Judge Guy Cole Jr.
- “The Court will not interpret the (Civil Rights Act) contrary to its text simply because an office of the party advancing that interpretation has adopted it,” — Stephanie Gallagher, U.S. District Judge
- “Martin Luther King Jr. once said the greatest march an American can take in a democracy is a march to the ballot box. Today’s decision reaffirms that this march is essential, and that no administration can place obstacles in the path of those who choose to take it,” — Carl Snowden, voter intervenor, Common Cause
- “Someone has to stand up for the rights of Maryland voters, and that's my function,” — Jared DeMarinis, Maryland Election Administrator
What’s Next
Appeals are pending in three other circuits, and the DOJ has indicated it may seek Supreme Court review. The issue will likely reappear during the 2026 midterm election cycle as both parties assess the balance between federal oversight and state autonomy in election administration.
