Federal Judge Says DOJ Can “No Longer” Be Trusted in Voter Roll Effort

Court delivers rare rebuke of Justice Department’s voter data campaign, warning of threats to voter privacy and state authority.

By: Haiti prime news|February 10, 2026|United States

A federal judge has issued a sharply worded ruling against the U.S. Department of Justice, concluding that the agency can “no longer” be presumed to act in good faith in its nationwide effort to obtain state voter registration data.

The decision, issued by U.S. District Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai, represents an unusually direct judicial rebuke of the U.S. Department of Justice and blocks its attempt to force the state of Oregon to hand over unredacted voter rolls containing sensitive personal information.

In his opinion, the judge found that the DOJ’s conduct — both in court filings and public communications — has undermined the traditional legal presumption that federal law-enforcement agencies act with regularity and neutrality.

“The presumption of regularity no longer holds,” the court wrote, stating that DOJ assurances about the purpose and use of the voter data cannot be taken at face value and must instead be subjected to heightened scrutiny.

A Dispute Over Voter Data

The case arose after Oregon election officials refused to comply with federal demands for detailed voter registration records, citing concerns over voter privacy, data security, and state control over election administration.

While federal law allows the DOJ to enforce voting rights statutes, the court determined that the department’s sweeping demands exceeded what is necessary and risked exposing sensitive voter information without adequate justification.

Judge Kasubhai also pointed to public statements and correspondence by DOJ leadership that appeared to link voter-roll access to unrelated federal enforcement matters, a move the court viewed as further evidence that the department’s motivations were not narrowly tailored to election-law enforcement.

A Broader Pattern of Judicial Resistance

The Oregon ruling follows similar outcomes in other states, where federal courts have rejected DOJ lawsuits seeking access to voter rolls:

In California, a federal judge dismissed the DOJ’s case, warning that the request posed a threat to the right to vote and voter privacy. In Michigan, a Trump-appointed judge ruled that federal statutes do not compel states to release unredacted voter registration data to the DOJ.

Together, these decisions have stalled or dismissed DOJ lawsuits in more than two dozen states targeted in the department’s voter-roll campaign.

Legal and Political Implications

Civil-rights advocates and state officials argue that the DOJ’s approach risks chilling voter participation and undermining public confidence in election systems. They warn that broad federal access to voter databases could lead to misuse, data breaches, or politicization of election administration.

The DOJ, for its part, has maintained that access to voter rolls is necessary to enforce federal voting laws and prevent election irregularities. However, the Oregon ruling marks a significant legal setback by questioning not just the department’s legal authority, but its credibility.

Legal experts note that it is rare for a federal court to explicitly state that a government agency has forfeited the presumption of good faith — a finding that could influence how future courts evaluate similar federal enforcement actions.

Sources

Democracy Docket — Federal judge rules DOJ can “no longer” be trusted in voter roll crusade

U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon — Court opinion and filings

Federal court rulings in California and Michigan voter-roll cases