“Devoid of Any Factual Basis”: Again and Again, Judges Have Dismissed Trump’s Voter Data Lawsuits

Since September 2025, the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division has initiated lawsuits against 30 states and the District of Columbia, requesting unredacted voter rolls. These lists, which contain sensitive data on millions of Americans, have traditionally been managed by individual states. President Donald Trump's campaign for federal control over elections and prosecution of alleged noncitizen voters has centered around these voter rolls.

As of now, 26 of these lawsuits have reached final rulings; four cases remain undecided, while one state reached a settlement. Among the 26 cases, eight were heard by judges appointed by Trump, four by appointees of another Republican, George W. Bush, and 14 by appointees of Democrats.

The inaugural seven lawsuits adopted an identical opening, invoking President Trump's March 2025 executive order on election integrity to argue that the Justice Department needed access to states' voter rolls to ensure conformity with federal election laws. However, the judges dismissed these lawsuits, asserting the lack of legal and factual grounds for the government's demand.

The judges pointed out that the statutes mandate states to maintain accurate, up-to-date computerized voter lists, which include confidential information. Nevertheless, the laws only grant the federal government limited authority to enforce these regulations. Several judges suggested that the administration was utilizing the election laws as a cover to limit voting rights.

"The foundation upon which American democracy has been built is the right to vote," said California federal Judge David O. Carter, a Bill Clinton appointee. "Now it appears the Executive Branch of the United States government aims to curtail the right of many Americans to cast their ballots." "Public statements from government officials reveal its intentions: to create a nationwide voter-database, potentially weaponize it in future elections; serve as a 'fishing expedition' to advance unsubstantiated claims of non-citizen voting; and employ it as a tool for immigration enforcement," added Pennsylvania federal Judge Cathy Bissoon, a Barack Obama appointee.

In an especially strong rebuke, the judge handling the Oregon case remarked that the federal government's actions eroded the judiciary's long-standing trust in the Justice Department, describing them as "chilling." "The presumption of regularity previously granted to the plaintiff that it could rely on the government's statements without significant doubt about its intentions and stated purposes, no longer holds," stated Oregon federal Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai, a Joe Biden appointee. All seven lawsuits employing this initial strategy were dismissed.