The big picture: The move adds to a string of legal losses for the administration as federal officials step up election-related investigations and challenges across the country.
- Justices warn that federal threats and investigations are driving citizens out of elections and endangering legal votes.
Driving the news: U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson ruled that the Justice and Homeland Security departments likely violated the Voting Rights Act’s ban on voter intimidation and exceeded their constitutional authority over elections.
- His temporary restraining order prohibits requiring states to remove registered voters, withhold their ballots or stop counting votes solely because the administration claims the voters are ineligible.
- It also prohibits threats of criminal prosecution against election workers who refuse such requests or process ballots in accordance with election laws.
- The judge ordered prosecutors to disclose pending search warrant requests, grand jury subpoenas and other requests related to his lists of allegedly ineligible voters.
What she says: Thompson found that the administration’s actions forced election workers to choose between complying with “defendants’ unlawful requests” or risking criminal prosecution for carrying out their jobs.
- “As the election approaches,” she wrote, “senior DOJ and DHS officials have engaged in a campaign to intimidate, threaten, and coerce state and local officials and employees who are engaged in the administration of the ongoing 2026 midterm elections. »
Zoom out: The move comes amid a broad federal campaign to obtain voter records, investigate alleged non-citizen votes and threaten state officials over election administration.
- Since May 2025, the DOJ has filed 31 lawsuits seeking to obtain sensitive voter records. So far, 27 have been fired.
- In July, the DOJ warned election officials in all 50 states that they could face criminal charges for knowingly allowing noncitizens to vote.
- On Thursday, he sent a new round of letters across the country, warning of criminal penalties for violating election records preservation requirements.
The other side: The DOJ has defended its election-related actions as necessary to enforce federal bans on non-citizen voting.
- The ministry did not immediately respond to Axios’ request for comment, but a spokesperson previously told Axios that the government would not wait for a “more opportune time” to enforce election laws.
Reality check: Non-citizen voting in federal elections is already illegal.
Zoom: In the final days of the election, the government intensified its legal battles across the country.
- California: The DOJ has sued to void the ballots of more than 20,000 voters it suspects are noncitizens, threatened election workers, and issued grand jury subpoenas. An appeals court on Friday rejected his emergency request, warning of “potentially catastrophic effects on the entire system.”
- Washington: Federal prosecutors have asked authorities to separate the ballots of more than 400 voters. Secretary of State Steve Hobbs said the federal list included U.S. citizens and was unreliable.
- Arizona: Prosecutors announced Friday evening the opening of an investigation into three Democratic-aligned recording groups after a right-wing media outlet published an undercover video. The DOJ also asked top state and Maricopa County election officials to review the registrations.
- Alaska: The DOJ sued to delay certification if Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan lost re-election and votes for a candidate with the same name could have changed the outcome. Prosecutors on Friday confirmed a criminal investigation into an alleged Democratic attempt to recruit the other Sullivan.
In a separate decision The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday left in place restrictions on DHS election field operations involving known or suspected U.S. citizens in nine states until Election Day.
- The underlying order, by Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín, concluded that federal threats had already caused citizens to “withdraw from participation in electoral activity.”
- The appeals court also questioned the timing: “In an operation ostensibly focused on past voter fraud, the government could have aggressively continued its campaign against non-citizen voting well before this election began.”
Gn headline
