A federal judge has blocked the Department of Justice’s demand for New Jersey’s unredacted voter rolls, citing privacy protections and ruling that federal law does not grant the Trump administration access to the state’s computerized voter registration database. U.S. District Judge Zahid Quraishi, a Biden appointee, dismissed the DOJ’s lawsuit on July 29, 2026, granting New Jersey’s motion to dismiss and denying the department’s motion to compel the records.
The DOJ had sought voters’ driver’s license numbers and the last four digits of their Social Security numbers—information the state’s Division of Elections had withheld on privacy grounds when it provided the publicly available voter list in July 2025. The dispute escalated into a multi-month legal battle that culminated in the department filing suit in February 2026.
Quraishi ruled on several grounds that the DOJ cannot compel New Jersey to release its unredacted records. Most significantly, he found that Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960—which the DOJ cited as its legal authority—applies only to records that “come into” election officials’ possession, not to a continuously updated, state-created computerized database. The judge noted that allowing the DOJ’s interpretation would create a direct conflict with federal election laws, since Title III prohibits altering covered records while the Help America Vote Act and National Voter Registration Act require states to update their voter lists continually.
Quraishi emphasized the constitutional balance between state and federal power in elections. “The Framers of the Constitution chose to embrace balance in crafting the Elections Clause,” he wrote, noting that while the Constitution entrusts election administration primarily to states, federal law gives the executive branch only “specific, narrow roles” in regulating elections. He added that the Executive Branch “did not feature at all” in the Framers’ original design.
The ruling arrived one day after New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill formally rejected a new DOJ demand for personal information about roughly 6,600 people mistakenly registered to vote through a Motor Vehicle Commission software failure in 2023 and 2024. The Trump administration quickly seized on this disclosure as evidence of voter fraud, but Quraishi said the error had “no bearing” on whether the DOJ was legally entitled to access the voter database.
A Nationwide Losing Streak
The New Jersey ruling extends a striking pattern of judicial rejection of the DOJ’s voter data campaign. The department’s district court record in its voter roll crusade now stands at 0-18, with no victories. Quraishi noted that judges across the country have reached the same conclusion: “This Court … joins at least sixteen other district courts including a sister court — and one circuit — in dismissing Plaintiff’s claim.” New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport said that “every court to consider the question, now totaling seventeen district courts and a federal court of appeals, have unanimously rejected this clear federal overreach.”
The DOJ has sued more than 30 states and the District of Columbia as part of its broader effort to compile a national database of voter information. Since May 2025, the department has demanded full, unredacted voter rolls—including driver’s license and Social Security data—from nearly every state. Despite the consistent judicial defeats, the DOJ said in a brief statement that it “disagree[s] with the court’s decision and will appeal.”
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, who leads the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, responded to the New Jersey ruling by escalating her criticism of Governor Sherrill on social media. “All you are protecting here is illegitimate voters who cancelled out the votes of your own state’s citizens, in violation of federal law,” Dhillon wrote, adding “Stay tuned. This isn’t over.” The department has signaled it will pursue the state’s data through all available legal means, even as courts across the country have rejected its claims of sweeping authority over states’ voter information.
Sources
- Democracy Docket — reported the 0-18 losing streak, Judge Quraishi’s reasoning on Title III of the Civil Rights Act, and the DOJ’s statement on appeal
- Politico — provided the timeline of the DOJ’s initial request in July 2025, the lawsuit filed in February 2026, and confirmed the count of 17 district courts and one appeals court rejecting the DOJ’s claims
- The Hill — confirmed the July 30, 2026 ruling and Quraishi’s privacy concerns rationale
- ACLU New Jersey — reported the court’s dismissal and noted that civil rights groups and voters intervened to protect voter privacy
