Trump DOJ's Election Probes Keep Getting Hampered by Conservative Judges

0 Share Newsweek is a Trust Project member See more of our trusted coverage when you search. Prefer Newsweek on Google to see more of our trusted coverage when you search. The Trump administration 's effort to obtain sensitive voter-registration data from states has run into a growing obstacle : judges appointed by Republican presidents , including some nominated by Trump.

On Monday, U.S. District Judge Philip A. Brimmer, a George W. Bush appointee in Colorado , dismissed a Department of Justice (DOJ) lawsuit seeking access to Colorado's nonpublic voter registration database, marking another setback for the administration's nationwide campaign to acquire detailed voter-roll information from states.

The ruling is the latest in a series of defeats for the DOJ as it attempts to use provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 to compel states to share voter-registration records containing sensitive information such as dates of birth, driver's license numbers and partial Social Security numbers.

According to tracking by the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), the DOJ has sued 30 states and the District of Columbia over access to statewide voter-registration lists, but a growing number of the cases have been dismissed.

“Now twenty courts, over half of them Republican-appointed judges, and eight of them appointed by President Trump, have unanimously held that DOJ’s attempts to seize sensitive voter data from the states is illegal," David Becker, executive director and founder of the nonpartisan, nonprofit Center for Election Innovation & Research and former trial attorney in the DOJ’s Voting Section, told Newsweek on Tuesday.

Newsweek reached out to the DOJ for comment via email Tuesday afternoon.

Brimmer concluded that Colorado's statewide voter registration list is not the type of "record or paper" that Congress intended to make available through the Civil Rights Act provisions cited by the DOJ. The judge found that the statute applies to records election officials receive from voters, such as registration documents and applications, rather than databases created and maintained by election administrators.

The court also found fault with the DOJ request itself, ruling that a December 2025 demand for Colorado's unredacted voter file failed to adequately state the statutory "basis and purpose" required under federal law.

Brimmer ultimately denied DOJ's motion to compel production of the records, granted motions to dismiss filed by Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold and intervening groups, and dismissed the federal government's complaint with prejudice.

“Trump and his DOJ are attacking elections and democracy. We will not let them win. Today’s victory affirms that Trump’s DOJ has no right to Coloradans’ sensitive voter information,” Griswold said in a statement to which her office referred Newsweek. “I will always defend our elections from unlawful federal interference.”

NCSL reported in July that federal courts had already dismissed similar DOJ lawsuits against Arizona, California, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin. Colorado was still pending at the time.

The Brennan Center for Justice similarly reported that at least 18 of the DOJ's voter-data lawsuits had been dismissed as of late July while noting that a federal appeals court had already upheld one of those rulings in Michigan.

The string of defeats is notable because they have not come primarily from judges appointed by Democratic presidents.

Brimmer was appointed by President George W. Bush. In Michigan, a federal judge rejected the DOJ's attempt to obtain the state's voter-registration database, a decision that was later affirmed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, according to the Brennan Center's litigation tracker.

The Colorado opinion also relies heavily on decisions from judges across multiple jurisdictions who rejected the DOJ's legal theory that statewide voter-registration databases qualify as records subject to compulsory production under the Civil Rights Act. Those courts have generally concluded that voter lists maintained and continually updated by state officials differ fundamentally from voter-registration applications and other documents submitted by voters.

That emerging consensus has complicated the administration's effort to use a little-litigated section of federal civil-rights law as a mechanism for obtaining state voter databases.

The DOJ has argued that access to the records is necessary to evaluate whether states are complying with federal voter-registration and voter-list maintenance requirements.

In announcing a wave of lawsuits in December 2025, then-U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said that "accurate voter rolls are the cornerstone of fair and free elections," while U.S. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon said states that refused to provide the information were interfering with federal efforts to ensure election integrity and compliance with federal law.

According to NCSL, the DOJ's requests have sought statewide voter-registration files containing names, dates of birth, partial Social Security numbers and motor-vehicle identification data. The department has argued that reviewing those records is necessary to assess state compliance with the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act.

"All 20 courts who have ruled have found that the states were appropriately protecting their citizens’ driver's license numbers, Social Security numbers and dates of birth from federal overreach," Becker said. "The DOJ—formerly the most-respected and experienced group of lawyers in the nation—now appears to be on track to lose more voting cases in less than two years than it lost in the previous 50 years.”

State election officials, voting -rights groups and advocacy organizations have pushed back, arguing that many states expre...

Indexed and credited by AIPROPX. Originating outlet: Newsweek. Open at source →