Judge Thompson: DOJ Voter List TRO Issued Over Unreliable Data

• U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson expressed skepticism regarding the Justice Department's actions concerning letters sent to election officials.
• The letters, which a union coalition claims are threatening, relate to a federal list of suspected noncitizens.
• Judge Thompson granted a preliminary injunction blocking the DOJ from intimidating election officials over this issue on November 2, 2026.
• The federal government's list of suspected noncitizens was described as "completely unreliable" by plaintiffs' counsel, a point partially conceded by a DOJ attorney.
• The lawsuit, brought by the SEIU and other groups, alleges the DOJ's actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act. The Department of Justice has appealed the preliminary injunction to the Ninth Circuit.

This legal battle, which now includes a preliminary injunction granted by Judge Thompson and an appeal by the Department of Justice to the Ninth Circuit, underscores the judicial oversight federal agencies face when their actions impact election processes, particularly when based on potentially unreliable data.

A federal judge in San Francisco recently expressed significant skepticism regarding the U.S. Justice Department's actions concerning letters sent to election officials, which a union coalition deemed threatening. U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson, a Joe Biden appointee, presided over a hearing to consider the Justice Department's request to stay or dissolve a temporary restraining order (TRO) she had previously issued. This TRO was superseded on November 2, 2026, when Judge Thompson granted a preliminary injunction that specifically prohibits the DOJ from intimidating or coercing local election officials nationwide regarding the processing of ballots from registered voters whom the government suspects are noncitizens. The judge's decision, which included a finding that the government's attempts to impose new procedures for counting ballots through threats of criminal prosecution of state election officials were unconstitutional, was delivered on November 2, 2026.

Central to this dispute is the integrity of the federal government's list of purported noncitizens. Leonard highlighted that the federal government was unable to obtain an unredacted California voter roll directly from the state, prompting it to compile its own list. This alternative list was reportedly derived from redacted information that someone purchased from the state and subsequently provided to federal authorities. However, the exact date when this data was procured remains undisclosed, and the federal government has not clarified when it received the information or whether it has undergone any alterations since its acquisition. Leonard underscored the dynamic nature of voter rolls, which are subject to constant change, leading her to describe the federal government's compilation as "completely unreliable."

During the hearing, Judge Thompson directly questioned Assistant U.S. Attorney Kenneth Kao about the accuracy of this data. She asked if he would agree that the list had a "high error rate," to which Kao conceded, "I think that's a fair statement." Kao explained that his office had sought to verify the list's accuracy with California authorities prior to Election Day, but the state declined to assist in this process. This acknowledgment of potential inaccuracies in the federal government's data further fueled the court's skepticism regarding the basis for the DOJ's directives to election officials.

A significant point of contention during the proceedings revolved around the plaintiffs' legal standing to bring the lawsuit. Kao argued that the individual election workers who initiated the legal complaint had not personally received the letters in question. He clarified that the Justice Department had directed these communications to county election officials, not directly to the election workers who are members of unions like the SEIU. This distinction, he suggested, undermined the plaintiffs' claim of direct harm.

However, attorney Stacey Leyton, also representing the plaintiffs, countered that Kao's argument was a mere technicality. She asserted that the threats of criminal prosecution contained within those letters were "broadly broadcast" and created a pervasive "fear that any reasonable person would have" among a wide array of election workers. Leyton emphasized that the court did not need to ascertain whether the threats actually prevented someone from processing ballots; rather, the critical determination was whether a reasonable person would feel intimidated by the communications. Judge Thompson also raised pointed questions about the timing of the government's investigation, asking why it commenced only after California had certified its election results. While Kao stated the government's objective was to ensure elections comprised valid voters, the judge pressed further, questioning the imperative to act "now, when we’re about to have an election tomorrow," highlighting the potential for disruption so close to an election. This legal battle, which now includes a preliminary injunction granted by Judge Thompson and an appeal by the Department of Justice to the Ninth Circuit, underscores the judicial oversight federal agencies face when their actions impact election processes, particularly when based on potentially unreliable data.

This development highlights the judicial scrutiny federal agencies face when their actions, particularly those impacting election processes, are based on unreliable data or perceived as exceeding statutory authority. Lawyers should monitor the final ruling for precedents regarding challenges to federal directives and the scope of agency power under the Administrative Procedure Act, especially when advising clients involved in election administration or facing federal investigations based on questionable data.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News Service