On October 9th, a federal judge ruled against a DOJ program that collected voter registration information from states, cross-checked it against a federal immigration database, and identified people that state officials must remove from the voter rolls.
U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan ruled that the DOJ exceeded its authority. The program violated several federal laws.
The program also removed American citizens from voter rolls.
Kentucky refused to participate. Months before Friday’s ruling, Kentucky’s Secretary of State Michael Adams and the Kentucky State Board of Elections refused to turn over confidential voter information to the DOJ. The DOJ sued them, and the courts ruled against it both times.
The two cases show what happens when a federal agency exceeds its authority, and what happens when those in charge don’t give it up.
The Justice Department wanted more than voter records
In 2025, President Trump signed an executive order directing the Justice Department (DOJ) to enter into election law enforcement and information-sharing agreements with states and to begin enforcing election laws against states that fail to do so.
The DOJ then issued numerous requests to 49 states and D.C. for their complete, unredacted voter registration lists.
The DOJ asked for voters’ names, dates of birth, addresses, driver’s license numbers, Social Security numbers, and other identifiers. 18 states turned over the voter records.
The Justice Department shared the information with the Department of Homeland Security, which checked it against a federal database known as SAVE. That system was originally designed to verify immigration status and citizenship for government agencies. It had been expanded to include Social Security Administration records.
The DOJ shared the information with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to compare it with the SAVE (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements) Program. SAVE was established to assist federal, state, and local agencies in determining whether individuals are eligible for benefits by verifying their immigration status and/or citizenship. Under agreements with the department, those states agreed to remove the ineligible voters within 45 days.
The Justice Department wasn’t just checking registration records for accuracy. According to Fortney Pan, then associate general counsel in the Office of Legal Counsel, the Justice Department had a system in which federal officials identified individuals for removal, and state officials were obligated to act.
The accuracy of the federal findings was also in question.
Someone could have been identified as a noncitizen, and therefore removed, based on outdated federal records. That person could have then become a naturalized citizen and, therefore, have the same voting rights as all other citizens.
The October 9 decision concerned two Texas citizens whose voter registrations had been canceled because the federal system did not verify their citizenship. One acquired citizenship by parentage, and the other became a citizen through naturalization.
The problem had moved from the hypothetical to reality. People who were legally entitled to vote had their registrations revoked.
Kentucky officials refused to turn over the records
Kentucky’s issues began in July 2025, when the Justice Department contacted the state’s Secretary of State, Michael Adams, to determine whether the state complied with certain federal election laws.
On August 14, the Justice Department officially requested Kentucky’s complete statewide voter registration list, including registrants’ dates of birth, residence addresses, and identification numbers.
State officials expressed concern about how the department would protect that information under federal laws. The Justice Department proposed an agreement to help alleviate those concerns.
Kentucky declined to sign the agreement.
On February 26, 2026, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit to compel the disclosure of Kentucky’s statewide voter registration list.
U.S. District Judge Claria Horn Boom ruled in Kentucky’s favor in July 2026. The Judge relied in part on a recent federal appellate court decision in Michigan, which called the Justice Department’s position “at best, speculative.”
Boom ruled that the Justice Department’s demand for Kentucky’s statewide voter registration list lacked merit and raised numerous legal and factual issues. Boom also ruled that the Justice Department’s demand for Kentucky’s statewide voter registration list was an unauthorized and impermissible use of the 1960 Civil Rights Act.
The Justice Department filed an appeal on July 24.
Kentucky was not the only state to reject the demands; numerous states reached the same conclusion. However, Kentucky’s case is the most informative because it shows a judicial decision made before the Justice Department could obtain the information it requested.
Enforcing the law is not the same as taking over a decision
The Justice Department has many legitimate election-related concerns.
States must maintain voter registration lists and remove voters who become ineligible under state and federal law. The Justice Department can investigate and prosecute violations of federal election laws.
None of this is surprising.
The concern is when the Justice Department overlaps with Congress's decision to give state election officials primary responsibility for organizing and conducting elections.
The Justice Department's requirements included state officials turning over confidential state voter lists to federal officials.
Federal officials compared these lists with a federal database that might contain outdated information. The feds decided which voters to remove, and the states agreed to implement those decisions.
Ultimately, the states remained responsible for their voter rolls, but the Justice Department decided which voter names should be removed.
This example shows the Pattern of Power: Attack independent institutions.
Independence may be threatened even if an institution is not eliminated. Decisions may be directed by outside persons who, by law, have no right to make them.
In this case, the Justice Department wanted to use its federal enforcement powers to make decisions reserved for state election officials.
Judge Sooknanan wasn’t convinced. She thought the federal statutes the Department of Justice cited didn’t allow the Department to run the voter list maintenance program as it wanted.
Her ruling did not prevent states from checking voters’ eligibility or from using legitimate federal assistance to maintain accurate information. It limited the ability of the Department of Justice to operate the program in question.
This is important. The ruling did not restrict efforts to protect the integrity of elections. The ruling restricted the Department of Justice from operating beyond the powers Congress had given it.
Kentucky officials could say no, and the courts could enforce it
The Kentucky lawsuit shows the Justice Department's demands weren't automatically binding on Kentucky.
The State Board of Elections could have and did refuse to turn over the documents.
Kentucky voters and organizations also had a role.
The League of Women Voters of Kentucky, the Kentucky Alliance for Retired Americans, other organizations, and individual voters participated in the litigation to defend their interests. Jefferson County Clerk David Yates also intervened.
These participants could not compel the Justice Department to change its position. They could ask a federal judge whether the department is authorized to make the demands.
In Kentucky, Judge Boom ruled against the department.
Another case, involving Common Cause and other individuals, challenged the same aspects of the department’s demands and policies in other states. On October 9, Judge Sooknanan went further than ruling against the department in that case. She also vacated the policy.
The department said it was reviewing the case. Other cases involve the SAVE database and a related case about the Supreme Court’s stay.
While litigation continues, one thing is clear. Federal agents are not legally authorized to impose and demand the law as they see fit or to interpret federal statutes that way.
What Kentucky residents can do now
A non-elected Kentuckian can’t make the final call on whether the Justice Department gets Kentucky’s voter database. That job belongs to election officials.
However, Kentuckians can review the processes election officials use to make those decisions.
For example, Kentuckians can ask the State Board of Elections about the procedures it uses to maintain the statewide registration database and remove voters from the rolls.
The board must tell Kentuckians how many registrations it removes from the rolls each year. Kentuckians can ask the board whether it has received and/or plans to give the Justice Department confidential voter information and/or whether the board has verified that the government employee(s) doing the comparison is/are a U.S. citizen prior to canceling a voter’s registration.
Kentuckians can also review the state’s published rules and the statistics the state gives on how registrations were removed from the rolls each year. If Kentuckians are unsatisfied with the board’s response, they can review the board’s decisions and procedures themselves.
What is more, every Kentuckian can do one important thing right away: check whether they are still registered to vote. Kentuckians can also confirm their registration is active. The state provides this service online at https://vrsws.sos.ky.gov/vic/. Many errors are discovered this way. However, if an individual finds an unexplained cancellation of their registration, they should contact their county clerk as soon as possible.
The registration deadline for the November 2026 election was October 5, 2026. So, submitting a new voter registration form cannot fix unexplained cancellations.
Like other states, Kentucky offers processes for voters challenged at the polls, such as a hearing before the county board of elections and, under certain conditions, a provisional ballot for federal offices. However, a provisional ballot does not guarantee a vote will be counted.
Voters may also contact the Election Protection hotline, a nonpartisan line, at 866-687-8683 for assistance.
Individual efforts to provide election protection may not resolve an unlawful demand by a federal official, but they may identify election process irregularities, empower voters to defend their right to vote and register, and let election process personnel know when problems arise in the processes they oversee.
Watch for the next demand to remove voters
The Justice Department’s program provides one of several warning signs that can be identified before courts get involved.
Federal officials often investigate election law violations or provide information that helps state officials ensure the accuracy of voter rolls.
The concern is when federal officials direct state election officials to remove specific voters and rely on information that the state has not verified and is unaware of.
At this point, addressing election law becomes tampering with election administration.
In Kentucky, the state refused to turn over the records, and a federal judge supported the state’s decision.
The next time the federal government directs state election officials to remove voters, the critical concern will be whether those election officials once again decline to remove voters and instead safeguard the rule of law.
Only then will this Pattern cease, and an inaccurate determination by the federal government will not lead to voter registration cancellation.
Sources
Court decisions and government records
1. U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, October 9, 2026. Memorandum opinion in Common Cause v. U.S. Department of Justice. This is the principal source for the national program, the statutes involved, wrongful voter removals, and the court’s decision to vacate the policy.
https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/51-2026-10-09-Memorandum-opinion.pdf
2. U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky, July 23, 2026. United States v. Adams. Establishes the Justice Department’s demands, Kentucky’s refusal, the relevant statutory dispute, and the dismissal.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/kentucky/kyedce/3:2026cv00019/111304/66/
3. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel. Federal legal interpretation supporting the department’s efforts to obtain and share state voter-roll information. Important for presenting the government’s own position.
https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/authority-obtain-and-share-statewide-voter-roll-data
4. Democracy Docket, Kentucky case tracker. Documents the Kentucky litigation and subsequent appeal.
https://www.democracydocket.com/cases/kentucky-doj-voter-data-access-challenge/
Reporting
5. Reuters, October 9, 2026. Coverage of Judge Sooknanan’s ruling, the Justice Department’s response, and related litigation.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us-judge-rules-justice-department-use-voter-rolls-unlawful-2026-10-09/
6. Kentucky Lantern, July 23, 2026. Reporting on the dismissal of the Justice Department’s Kentucky lawsuit.
Verified citizen-action resources
7. Kentucky State Board of Elections. Official responsibilities and governing authority.
https://elect.ky.gov/About-Us/Pages/State-Board-of-Elections.aspx
8. Kentucky State Board of Elections. Voter-list maintenance procedures and publicly available reports.
https://elect.ky.gov/Resources/Pages/List-Maintenance.aspx
9. GoVoteKY. Official voter-registration lookup and online voter services.
https://vrsws.sos.ky.gov/ovrweb/govoteky/
10. Kentucky State Board of Elections. Voter rights and procedures relevant to eligibility disputes.
https://elect.ky.gov/Voters/Pages/Voter-Rights.aspx
11. Election Protection. Nonpartisan voter-assistance program, including the 866-OUR-VOTE hotline.