On the eve of the midterms, a federal judge blocked a policy of transmitting lists of voters presented as non-citizens. Tanya Chutkan’s decision, issued on November 2 in Washington, puts a new brake on the Trump administration. In another proceeding, a stay obtained by Washington was cancelled after an extended training review was initiated. These separate decisions do not change the conditions of citizenship for voting or the result of a still to be cast ballot.
New protection on electoral data
Judge Chutkan granted a preliminary injunction and suspended the contested data transmission policy. The case concerns the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security. It concerns the sending to the electoral authorities of lists identifying persons as non-citizens who may be registered on the electoral lists.
The emergency request came from the League of United Latin American Citizens, known as LULAC, and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, or EPIC. These organizations challenge compliance with the Privacy Act, which governs the use and disclosure of personal data by the federal government.
The decision does not end the trial. At this stage, Chutkan estimates the conditions for provisional protection. His reasoning emphasizes the risk of errors in the data and their consequences for legally registered citizens. Misidentification can cause a challenge to the newsletter or discourage participation.
The judge also notes the danger of increased confusion among voters and local officials. It considers that the protection of existing electoral procedures justifies the intervention of the court. This analysis does not mean that anyone on a federal list would necessarily be a citizen. Nor does it turn suspicions of the administration into evidence of illegal voting.
A suspended stay, an extended training review
Two successive decisions were taken on 2 November. A panel of three judges from the ninth circuit had initially suspended protection granted to unions and associations by Justice Trina Thompson.
But a majority of the non-disputed active judges then voted for the review of this case in the extended formation, known as « in bench ». The order signed by Mary Murguia expressly annulled the panel’s decision. The suspension granted to the administration can therefore no longer be presented as the last decision of the court.
Initial protection included requests for separate ballots and threats of prosecution of election officials. The panel questioned the possibility of bringing private action against the executive under Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act.
The initiation of the review does not yet constitute a definitive stoppage of the extended training on this issue. The case remains separate from that of Chutkan and the Supreme Court’s refusal to impose on California the setting aside of disputed ballots.
Midterms: Federal observers under judicial control
A third decision concerns the monitoring of polling stations. In a case initiated by NAACP, Judge Reggie Walton refused an emergency measure on 2 November, without closing the possibility of a new application. It relies on government assurances, but also imposes conditions: administrative observers, unarmed, without uniforms or arrest powers.
However, Walton requires a precise report. The administration must explain how it verified that no participant in the Department of Justice’s observation programme is a law enforcement officer with the power to arrest persons.
The order fixes November 3 at 7 a.m. in Washington, D.C., at 12 UTC, the deadline for submission of this report. The court plans to respond quickly if complainants report a violation of government commitments during the vote.
Cover: Federal Court E. Barrett Prettyman in Washington, behind the George Meade Memorial, archive of May 17, 2007. Photo:Jorfer / Wikimedia Commons, public domain (PD-self). Boxing and dressing Libnanews. This visual does not represent the Supreme Court or a November 2026 hearing.
Comments