> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.theamericanquorum.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Judge Vacates DOJ Voter-List Policy Used in 18 States
- URL: https://www.theamericanquorum.com/judge-vacates-doj-voter-list-policy-18-states/
- Published: 2026-10-09T18:35:57.000Z
- Updated: 2026-10-09T18:35:57.000Z
- Description: A federal judge vacated a Justice Department policy that collected unredacted voter rolls from 18 states and used federal citizenship checks, ruling the program exceeded statutory authority and violated privacy law.
- Author: News Desk
- Tags: Breaking News

A federal judge on Friday vacated a Justice Department policy that collected unredacted voter-registration lists from at least 18 states, compared them with federal citizenship data and pressed states to remove people the department considered ineligible. The ruling, issued less than four weeks before the Nov. 3 midterm elections, found that the national program exceeded the department’s statutory authority and violated federal privacy and paperwork laws.

U.S. District Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan granted partial summary judgment to Common Cause and four voters in a [78-page ruling](https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/51-2026-10-09-Memorandum-opinion.pdf?ref=theamericanquorum.com) filed in Washington. She set aside and vacated what the court called the Justice Department’s “Voter List Maintenance Policy,” rejecting the government’s motion to dismiss or win judgment in its favor. [Reuters](https://www.reuters.com/world/us-judge-rules-justice-department-use-voter-rolls-unlawful-2026-10-09/?ref=theamericanquorum.com) first reported the decision Friday afternoon.

## A national data project

The administrative record showed that the Civil Rights Division requested complete voter files from 49 states and the District of Columbia. North Dakota does not maintain a statewide voter-registration list. At least 18 states fully complied, according to the opinion, turning over data that could include names, birth dates, addresses, driver’s-license numbers, partial Social Security numbers, party affiliation and voting history.

The department then shared cooperating states’ lists with the Department of Homeland Security, which checked the records through the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements database, known as SAVE. Justice officials returned potential matches to states and, according to the court, urged officials to remove people from their rolls. The Justice Department had argued in a formal [legal opinion](https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/authority-obtain-and-share-statewide-voter-roll-data?ref=theamericanquorum.com) that federal voting laws authorized it to obtain the files and share them with Homeland Security.

Sooknanan rejected that interpretation. She ruled that the Civil Rights Act of 1960, the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act authorize specific enforcement steps but do not let the federal government take over state list maintenance. The Constitution and Congress, she wrote, leave the core decision about voter eligibility with the states.

## Four independent legal defects

The court identified four bases for invalidating the policy. It found no statutory authorization for the program; held that the department acted arbitrarily by failing to confront known accuracy problems; found substantive and procedural violations of the Privacy Act; and concluded that DOJ skipped requirements imposed by the Paperwork Reduction Act when it sought uniform information from states.

The accuracy finding was central. The opinion said the government knew SAVE could misclassify some citizens, yet did not adequately consider the risk before using the system for a nationwide search. The record included citizens who had been flagged as possible noncitizens and then faced cancellation or demands for additional proof. The court said the risk was not hypothetical and that the policy had already caused lawful voters to be removed in their home states.

That finding tracks the plaintiffs’ central allegation. The ACLU’s [case summary](https://www.aclu.org/cases/common-cause-v-u-s-department-of-justice?ref=theamericanquorum.com) said the program combined state files containing sensitive personal information with a federal process that could misidentify eligible citizens. The plaintiffs sought to halt further collection, use and sharing of the data.

## What the ruling changes

The decision does not stop states from maintaining accurate rolls, nor does it prohibit the federal government from investigating a specific alleged violation. Sooknanan wrote that DOJ may still act on particular complaints and use its lawful enforcement powers. What the ruling eliminates is the blanket national policy of demanding full state lists, running them through federal databases and asking states to act on the resulting matches.

The practical effect may become clearer when the court issues its separate implementing order. The administration can also appeal and seek a stay. No Justice Department response was included in the initial Friday report.

The ruling is distinct from a separate case over the Trump administration’s 2025 expansion of SAVE itself. In that litigation, Sooknanan invalidated changes that added Social Security Administration data and bulk-search capability. The [Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/26a308%5Fpok0.pdf?ref=theamericanquorum.com) temporarily stayed that earlier decision on Sept. 25 while the appeal proceeds, allowing the modified database to operate for now. Friday’s decision instead targets the Justice Department policy governing the collection, transfer and use of state voter files.

## Why it matters now

The timing gives the ruling immediate national significance even though federal law already limits systematic voter removals within 90 days of a federal election. Early voting is underway in several states, and the challenged system reached voter data from a substantial share of the country. The court’s remedy removes the federal policy itself rather than merely protecting the named plaintiffs.

The opinion also places a firm boundary around federal election enforcement: DOJ can investigate supported violations, but it cannot treat every registered voter as the subject of a generalized fraud inquiry. For voters and state administrators, the next questions are whether the administration appeals, whether a higher court pauses the judgment and what the separate order requires DOJ to do with data it already collected.