Judges Block Trump Voter-Data Push in 2 Rulings, Citing 75-Page Privacy and Accuracy Rebuke
Updated
Updated · eciks.org · Jun 22
Judges Block Trump Voter-Data Push in 2 Rulings, Citing 75-Page Privacy and Accuracy Rebuke
3 articles · Updated · eciks.org · Jun 22
Summary
Two federal judges on June 22 dealt fresh blows to the Trump administration’s national voter-data effort, blocking DHS from using its revamped SAVE database for voter-roll checks and throwing out the DOJ’s bid for Maryland’s records.
A 75-page ruling by Judge Sparkle Sooknanan said the overhauled immigration system made voter verification less accurate, threatened to disenfranchise eligible voters, and created privacy risks rather than improving election checks.
Hours earlier, Judge Stephanie Gallagher dismissed the Maryland case seeking unredacted voter rolls with voting histories, birth dates, driver’s license numbers and partial Social Security numbers, rejecting the DOJ’s reading of federal voting law.
The administration has pressed dozens of states and Washington, D.C. for voter files and told courts it planned to share lists with DHS for immigration enforcement; at least 16 states have complied voluntarily.
The rulings add to losses in California, Michigan, Oregon and Massachusetts, extending court resistance to Trump election orders ahead of November’s midterm fight for control of Congress.
How will these court rulings redefine the balance of power between states and the federal government in elections?
If federal databases are too flawed for voter verification, what is a truly secure and accurate alternative?
Federal Courts Block Trump Administration’s Expanded Voter Database: 2025–2026 Rulings Reinforce State Control and Voter Privacy
Overview
On June 22, 2026, U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan blocked the Trump administration’s expanded use of the federal SAVE database, which had been overhauled to include records of natural-born citizens and Social Security data, and allowed bulk searches by various entities. This move was seen as a crucial protection for voters, as the system was described as unlawful and error-prone, raising fears of wrongful voter removals and baseless investigations. The ruling highlights the ongoing tension between federal efforts to centralize voter data and the courts’ defense of voter privacy and state authority over elections.