Voting Rights

In granting preliminary injunction, court finds that President Trump’s 2026 executive order is likely unconstitutional and likely to disenfranchise voters in upcoming elections

Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction and other matters still pending

We filed this case on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts to challenge President Trump’s Executive Order on mail-in ballots that would seize control of federal elections, violating the constitutional separation of powers and the Tenth Amendment.

In December 2025, the ACLU of Massachusetts and the ACLU Voting Rights Project filed a motion to intervene on behalf of Common Cause, Jane Doe Inc., and a Massachusetts voter in United States of America v. Galvin to prevent the U.S. Department of Justice from obtaining Massachusetts voters’ personal data. In July 2025, the DOJ asked Massachusetts to turn over voters’ full names, dates of birth, addresses, driver’s license numbers, and partial Social Security numbers — highly sensitive data protected under state and federal law. Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth William F. Galvin appropriately declined to share this sensitive data. The United States then filed this lawsuit — one of at least twenty-five nearly identical actions the DOJ has initiated against states and election officials — seeking to compel the production of sensitive Massachusetts voter data. According to extensive public reporting, corroborated by government documents, the DOJ’s requests for private, sensitive voter data from Massachusetts and other states appear to be in connection with novel efforts to construct a national voter database, and to otherwise use untested forms of database analysis to scrutinize state voter rolls and challenge voters’ eligibility. In their motion to intervene, the parties argue that the DOJ’s request threatens voter privacy and could enable voter disenfranchisement. The parties’ motion to intervene was allowed on January 6, 2026. On behalf of the intervenors, the ACLU has since filed a motion to dismiss the DOJ’s complaint. The intervenors argue that the United States seeks to compel disclosure of sensitive voter information to which it is not entitled. Neither the information requests propounded by the DOJ, nor the complaint itself provide the “basis and the purpose” for the DOJ’s requests as required under the Civil Rights Act of 1960, under which the DOJ brings suit. The intervenors argue that the DOJ is grossly misusing civil rights era statutes to reach discriminatory and illegal ends. Additionally, the intervenors argue that the DOJ’s stated reason for requesting millions of Massachusetts voters’ personal data is pretextual. Public reporting and publicly available government documents confirm that the United States’s actual purpose is not to ensure compliance with federal statute, but to compile an unprecedented national voter file using error-prone forms of data-aggregation and then to use this tool to identify and mass-challenge ostensibly ineligible voters. Common Cause, an intervenor in the case, is a nonpartisan, grassroots organization dedicated to upholding the core values of American democracy. Jane Doe Inc. is a coalition of organizations dedicated to advocating on behalf of survivors of sexual and domestic violence. The group has an interest in protecting the privacy of survivors. Juan Pablo Jaramillo, a naturalized U.S. citizen, is also represented in the case. Jaramillo has an interest because his status as a naturalized citizen may place him at a heightened risk of being targeted for voter disenfranchisement, a threat that extends to countless other Massachusetts voters.

Arbitrary deadlines should not keep anyone from exercising their constitutional right to vote.