Judge orders Justice Department to disclose noncitizen voter letters it sent to states

Michael Macagnone, CQ-Roll Call on Oct 29, 2026

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

WASHINGTON — A federal judge in Washington ordered the federal government Thursday to provide more information about letters it has sent to several states demanding they set aside ballots of alleged noncitizens during next week’s elections.

The ruling from Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia would require the Justice Department to disclose other states, beyond California and Washington, it has sent such demands to since July. Boasberg, speaking during a hearing Thursday, left open the possibility of a ruling barring the government from sending more of those letters by Monday.

The hearing came as part of a lawsuit — filed by Senate Minority Leader Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., the Nevada Democratic Party and national Democratic campaign committees — that alleges the Trump administration has sought to shoehorn itself into state election procedures by claiming that states allowed noncitizens to vote in the midterm elections.

Boasberg also set a hurried briefing schedule for the government and the plaintiffs, including a deadline Saturday for another briefing, adding “you can get it done earlier so people can go trick or treating, that’s fine, or you can stay up until the witching hours.” Boasberg said the government could also moot, or make the case effectively useless, by saying the administration would not send any more letters.

“You at any point can moot this, moot it all by saying we don’t intend to do this before the election, but if you don’t, I’ll issue an opinion by Monday,” Boasberg said.

Uzoma Nkem Nkwonta, an attorney for the Democrats bringing the suit, argued the letters were effectively trying to force states to set aside ballots with language threatening lawsuits if the states did not comply.

“The government cannot use threats of prosecution to coerce officials to do something the government could not do on its own,” Nkwonta said.

Nkwonta cited the suit the DOJ brought against California — where a judge denied a temporary restraining order to set aside 20,000 ballots Wednesday — as well as letters sent to other states demanding that state officials set aside the ballots of alleged noncitizens.

On Thursday Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs published a response to the letter it received from the DOJ demanding that it segregate the ballots of alleged noncitizens. In the response, Hobbs noted that the list of names sent by DOJ included the names of U.S. citizens.

“Rather than distract these dedicated public servants from their important work at this late hour with a meritless lawsuit, I strongly encourage you to revisit the deeply flawed data you provided earlier this week, identify any actual proof, and work collaboratively with my office in the weeks or months to come,” Hobbs’ statement said.

Nkwonta said that without the additional disclosures from the government — which Boasberg granted Thursday — then they could not know if other states quietly complied with the government’s demands rather than take up a public fight.

Christian Dibblee, attorney for the government, argued that the letters themselves were not self-enforcing.

“There is nothing about the actual transmission of the letter that forces the recipient to do anything. It just notifies them of potential violations of federal law,” Dibblee said.