DOJ Loses Massachusetts Voter Rolls Case

A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a Department of Justice lawsuit seeking Massachusetts' voter rolls.

The ruling follows a pattern in federal courts during President Donald Trump's second term, where judges have consistently rebuffed similar efforts.

But the ruling by U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin rested on narrower grounds than some of his counterparts.

Sorokin did not rule that the federal government can never obtain statewide voter-registration data.

Instead, he focused on a threshold procedural failure, holding that the DOJ did not comply with Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 because its written demand lacked a required "statement of the basis" for seeking the records.

Although the DOJ articulated a purpose — evaluating compliance with federal voter-list maintenance laws — Sorokin ruled it offered no factual justification, a mandatory prerequisite under the statute.

According to DOJ's lawsuit, under then-Attorney General Pam Bondi, the department sent a letter to Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin in July requesting an unredacted voter list.

The list was to include "each registrant's name, date of birth, residential address," and other information.

In August, Galvin requested an additional 60 days to respond but later stopped responding. In December, a state official reportedly told the DOJ the state would not comply.

"Today's ruling is a decisive win for Massachusetts voters and the rule of law," Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell said in a news release. "The privacy of our voters is not up for negotiation, and I will continue to defend the integrity and security of our elections from the Trump administration's cruel and harmful agenda."

Title III of the Civil Rights Act requires election officials in each state to "retain and preserve, for a period of twenty-two months," records and documentation related to elections for federal office.

Federal law also requires states to provide those records to the U.S. attorney general if the request is made in writing.

"The United States' complaint fails for the simple reason that the Attorney General's demand did not comply with Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960, the statute on which it purports to rely," Sorokin ruled. "Because the Court concludes that the Attorney General's letter failed to 'contain a statement of the basis' for the demand as required by law, the Court need not reach the parties' other arguments."

Sorokin wrote the July letter "identifies no requirements of federal law with which Massachusetts had, or was suspected to have, failed to comply."

Sorokin's ruling closely tracks a decision out of Oregon, where a federal judge in January likewise concluded that the DOJ cannot collapse the statutory requirement of stating a "basis" and a "purpose" into a generalized compliance inquiry.

Both courts emphasized that Title III demands must include a concrete factual foundation, not merely cite legal authority or assert an investigative goal.

Other district courts have gone further.

In Michigan, a federal judge in February dismissed DOJ's lawsuit not only for deficiencies in its demand, but also on substantive grounds, concluding the statutes cited by the government — including the National Voter Registration Act and Help America Vote Act — do not authorize compelled disclosure of a state's full electronic voter list.

A California federal court in January similarly rejected the DOJ's claims, highlighting limits in federal law and raising concerns about voter privacy tied to broad, unredacted data requests.

A Georgia case added to the DOJ's setbacks on procedural grounds after an initial filing was dismissed in January for being brought in the wrong venue before being refiled.

Notably, appellate courts have not yet issued definitive rulings on the merits. Appeals in several cases are pending, meaning the current legal landscape is being shaped at the district court level.

Newsmax has contacted the Department of Justice for comment.