Trump-appointed federal judge rejects major DOJ lawsuit

Michigan wins third court ruling this year

A federal judge appointed by President Trump dismissed the Department of Justice’s lawsuit to obtain Michigan’s full voter registration list on Feb. 10.

U.S. District Judge Hala Jarbou, chief judge of the Western District of Michigan, ruled in a 23-page opinion that no federal law requires states to hand over sensitive personal data.

Trump appointed Jarbou in 2020, and the Senate confirmed her 83-15. The ruling marks the third time in 2026 that a court has rejected the administration’s push to collect unredacted voter rolls.

DOJ sought data on 8 million voters

The DOJ wanted an electronic copy of Michigan’s voter registration list covering about 8 million voters.

The data included full names, birth dates, home addresses, driver’s license numbers, and partial Social Security numbers.

The DOJ said it needed the information to verify the state was maintaining its voter rolls and to check for noncitizen registrations.

Attorney General Pam Bondi’s office filed the lawsuit in September 2025 after Michigan refused to hand over the sensitive records.

Michigan offered public records only

Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson said her office gave the DOJ the publicly available version of the voter file.

That version includes basic information but leaves out sensitive details like Social Security and driver’s license numbers.

Benson said only state and local election officials have the right to voters’ private information, not the president or any federal agency.

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel filed the motion to dismiss, arguing the DOJ had no legal basis for its demand.

Judge rejected all three legal arguments

The DOJ pointed to three federal laws: the Help America Vote Act, the National Voter Registration Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1960.

Jarbou ruled that the Help America Vote Act does not require disclosure of any voter records.

She found the National Voter Registration Act does not cover voter registration lists because they are not list maintenance records.

She also ruled the Civil Rights Act does not apply because voter rolls are not documents that come into officials’ possession the way the law describes.

Ruling warned of harm to voting rights

Jarbou wrote that forcing states to make private voter information public could place an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote under the First Amendment.

She noted that if personal details like Social Security numbers became widely available, they could no longer verify a voter’s identity.

The judge also said the DOJ had not alleged any actual violations of the Help America Vote Act and called the effort a “fishing expedition” to find evidence for a claim that did not yet exist.

Three courts have now dismissed DOJ suits

Michigan is the third state where a federal court has thrown out a DOJ voter data lawsuit this year.

In January, a federal judge in California called the DOJ’s request for that state’s voter data unprecedented and illegal.

Days later, a federal judge in Oregon dismissed a similar case, finding the DOJ did not meet the legal standard for the records. A federal judge in Georgia tossed a separate suit because the DOJ filed it in the wrong city.

DOJ has sued at least 24 states

The DOJ has sued at least 24 states and Washington, D.C., for refusing to hand over full voter registration lists.

The campaign began in mid-2025 when the DOJ sent letters to nearly every state requesting unredacted voter data.

All of the states that have faced lawsuits are led by Democrats or were won by Biden in the 2020 election. The administration says it needs the data to make sure states are following federal election laws.

Eleven states handed over voter rolls

At least 11 states have provided or agreed to provide their full voter rolls, including driver’s license and Social Security numbers.

Those states include Alaska, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming.

Texas alone turned over data on about 18 million registered voters in December 2025. The DOJ has asked each state to sign confidential agreements that outline how the data would be used.

Critics raise identity theft concerns

Election officials from both parties have noted that the federal government has never before had access to this kind of voter data.

Critics worry the administration could use it to build a national voter database or target voters for removal from the rolls.

The confidential agreements ask states to remove any voters flagged by the DOJ within 45 days, which voting rights groups say could violate federal protections against improper purges.

A nonpartisan election security expert warned that collecting birth dates, Social Security numbers, and driver’s license numbers in one place creates a major identity theft risk.

States control elections under the Constitution

Under the U.S. Constitution, states control voter registration, election supervision, ballot counting, and fraud prevention.

The federal government has never played a direct role in maintaining voter rolls, which state and local officials handle.

Senate Democrats have accused the DOJ of running a pressure campaign to force states to give up their authority over elections.

Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska criticized related legislation, reminding colleagues that Republicans opposed federal election overhauls as recently as the Biden administration.

More than 20 lawsuits remain active

The DOJ has not said whether it will appeal the Michigan ruling.

The California judge who dismissed that state’s case noted he expected the ruling to reach the Supreme Court on appeal. More than 20 similar lawsuits remain active in other states.

Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress are pushing the SAVE Act, which would add new federal requirements like proof of citizenship for voter registration.

Democrats have vowed to block it in the Senate.

Voters’ personal data stays with states for now

The outcome of these lawsuits could determine whether the federal government gains access to the personal data of tens of millions of American voters.

Courts so far have sided with states that say privacy laws protect voters’ sensitive information from federal collection.

The rulings may shape how much power the federal government has over elections heading into the 2026 midterms.

For now, voters in states that refused to comply can expect their personal data to remain under state control.

This article was created with AI assistance and human editing.

Read more from this brand:

• Phoenix, AZ launches traffic cameras Feb. 23 with one big thing missing
• Federal judge blocks Trump DOJ from seizing California voter records
• Supreme Court Sides With Texas Republicans in Major Redistricting Fight