The Department of Justice’s nationwide campaign to obtain voter registration data from states has hit a sustained losing streak in federal courts, with judges across the country consistently rejecting the agency’s legal claims. The DOJ’s record in district court stands at 0-18 after a federal judge dismissed its lawsuit seeking New Jersey’s unredacted voter rolls on July 29, 2026, according to Democracy Docket.
U.S. District Judge Zahid Quraishi ruled that the Civil Rights Act of 1960 does not grant the federal government access to states’ live voter registration databases. The judge wrote that the law applies only to records that “come into” election officials’ possession, not continuously changing computerized systems created and maintained by states themselves.
Quraishi also found that the DOJ’s interpretation would directly conflict with other federal election laws. Title III of the Civil Rights Act prohibits altering covered records, while the Help America Vote Act and National Voter Registration Act require states to update voter lists continually. “Simply stated, this creates a conflict,” the judge wrote, calling the DOJ’s claim to the database “untenable.”
The New Jersey ruling extends a nationwide pattern. Federal courts in California, Michigan, Oregon, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Arizona, Maine, Wisconsin, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire have all dismissed DOJ lawsuits seeking voter data, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. Judges have consistently held that the DOJ failed to establish either a factual basis or legitimate purpose for accessing the records, as required by the Civil Rights Act.
The DOJ has sued 30 states total seeking compliance with demands for voter registration lists. Those lists contain sensitive personal information including driver’s license numbers, Social Security numbers, and voters’ addresses. At least 16 states have agreed to provide some data, while most have refused, according to the Brennan Center.
In an important appellate development, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Michigan district court’s decision in June 2026, marking the DOJ’s first loss at the appellate level. Several courts have documented concerns about the department’s true intentions. The Oregon judge noted “ulterior motives” and said the “presumption of regularity” that the DOJ could be trusted “no longer holds.” The Maine judge observed that DOJ promises to protect confidential data were “almost immediately undermined” by an executive order requiring creation of a mass “citizenship list” for election monitoring.
The Constitution primarily entrusts election administration to the states, Quraishi emphasized in his New Jersey ruling. Federal law gives the executive branch only “specific, narrow roles” in regulating elections. The judge cited the Elections Clause: “The diffusion of power between state and federal government was intended to preserve and restore to the people their equal and sacred rights of election.”
After the New Jersey dismissal, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon responded by escalating attacks on the state, accusing New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill of protecting “illegitimate voters” and signaling the DOJ would continue pursuing the data “through all legal means.” The department has indicated it will appeal the New Jersey case, as it has nearly every other loss.
Sources
- Democracy Docket — DOJ’s 0-18 record in district court, Judge Quraishi’s July 29 ruling, legal reasoning on Civil Rights Act, Harmeet Dhillon’s response
- Brennan Center for Justice — 11 federal courts dismissing DOJ lawsuits, states’ refusal and compliance breakdown, judges’ findings on lack of basis and purpose, concerns about DOJ motives and data security
- Jersey Vindicator — Judge Zahid Quraishi’s dismissal with prejudice, Civil Rights Act interpretation
- ACLU — Kentucky ruling marking 19th consecutive federal court rejection of DOJ voter roll attempts
