Federal Court Dismisses Trump Administration's Lawsuit to Obtain Private Voter Data from Massachusetts

Voting Rights Groups Help Secure Legal Victory Protecting Data Privacy

April 9, 2026 4:00 pm

Media Contact

Mark Sheridan, media@aclum.org

BOSTON — A U.S. District Court judge today dismissed a Trump administration lawsuit seeking full access to unredacted voter rolls from Massachusetts, which contain highly sensitive information about voters. The court found that the Department of Justice offered no basis for demanding the information and did not even attempt to remedy the “clear shortcomings” in its process.

The American Civil Liberties Union and ACLU of Massachusetts filed a motion to dismiss the DOJ’s complaint and opposed the DOJ’s motion to compel disclosure of the voter data on behalf of intervenors Common Cause, Jane Doe Inc., and impacted voter Juan Pablo Jaramillo of Revere.

“As today’s ruling makes clear, the Trump administration provided absolutely no basis for its extraordinary demand to access sensitive voter data in Massachusetts,” said Jessie Rossman, legal director at the ACLU of Massachusetts. “Attempting to enforce such a demand without any explanation is a fundamental abuse of executive power that has no place in our electoral system. The court’s dismissal of this baseless lawsuit is a victory for Massachusetts voters and democracy.”

Massachusetts was one of 29 states plus the District of Columbia to be sued by the DOJ in its pursuit of unredacted voter rolls. Judges in three other states — Michigan, Oregon, and California — have also dismissed the DOJ’s lawsuits. Cases in other states are pending.

“DOJ is attempting to commandeer voters’ sensitive personal information for no legitimate reason, and the Court saw right through it,” said Ari Savitzky, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project. “The federal government can't bully states into handing over private voter data — and we will stand up to stop them when they try. Protecting voters means holding this administration accountable for this unlawful data grab.”

This case, United States v. Galvin, originated late last year when the DOJ sued Secretary of the Commonwealth William F. Galvin after he refused to turn over unredacted voter rolls containing highly sensitive information, including full names, dates of birth, addresses, driver’s licenses numbers, and partial Social Security numbers.

Granted leave to intervene in early January, the ACLU’s clients argued that the DOJ did not have a legal right to obtain complete, unredacted voter rolls and that it could not be trusted with such sensitive information, given the Trump administration’s brazen efforts to undermine election integrity. Extensive reporting suggests that the Trump administration wants to aggregate state voter information into a national database to disenfranchise voters.

Voters and voting rights groups involved in the case shared the following comments:

Geoff Foster, Common Cause’s Massachusetts executive director: “Today’s ruling is a victory for voter privacy and a testament to the power of organized advocacy in the face of federal overreach. By standing our ground, we’ve ensured that the people of Massachusetts are protected from an unauthorized national database that would have been a goldmine for hackers and a tool for intimidation. Common Cause will continue fighting any attacks on voting rights and data privacy to ensure our elections remain safe, secure, and in the hands of Bay Staters where they belong.”

Juan Pablo Jaramillo, a resident of Revere: “As a voter who is deeply concerned about the integrity of our elections, I am relieved by this ruling. Judge Leo T. Sorokin's decision rebuffs the Trump administration's attempt to intimidate and silence Massachusetts voters like me. This ruling also is a welcome sign that our judicial system is strong and independent, and that while the tenets of our constitutional republic are under threat, they are bending but not breaking under attempts to undermine them. I am grateful to Jane Doe Inc., the ACLU and ACLU of Massachusetts, Common Cause Massachusetts, and civil and voting rights organizations that joined in this fight with whom I will continue to be vigilant about threats to our election security.”

Read the order here.

More information about United States v. Galvin here.

Related Issues

Voting Rights View All Issues

Related Content

Court Case
Feb 10, 2026
Placeholder image
  • Voting Rights

United States v. Galvin

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.