Civil Rights Groups File Emergency Federal Challenge to Louisiana Officials’ Attempt to Suspend Election Already Underway

CHICAGO, IL: A federal judge in the Central District of Illinois ruled Friday that Illinois is not required to share sensitive registered voter data with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), finding that the government’s broad demand for Illinois’ voters confidential information runs afoul of federal law. This decision marks the 19th consecutive federal court ruling nationwide rejecting the DOJ’s attempts to capture unredacted state voter rolls. The ruling stems from a December 2025 lawsuit—United States v. Matthews—filed after the Illinois State Board of Elections refused to turn over its unredacted voter registration file, a file that contains sensitive personal data about millions of Illinois residents including each individual’s full name, date of birth, address, driver’s license number and partial Social Security number. Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, Common Cause, the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, and three Illinois voters—Pablo Mendoza, Brian Beals, and Alejandra Ibañez—moved to intervene in the case, a motion that was granted. These clients are represented by Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, the ACLU National Voting Rights Project and the ACLU of Illinois. “This ruling is another decisive rejection of the federal government’s attempts to bypass its limits of power,” said Ethan Herenstein, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project. “The Trump administration cannot manufacture a voter fraud crisis to justify a sweeping up of sensitive personal information from millions of Americans.” “This victory makes it 19-0 in stopping the federal government from seizing your private voter data,” said Maryam Jazini Dorcheh, Vice President of Litigation at Common Cause. “The record is clear: states run elections —not the president. We won’t stop fighting to protect voters’ privacy.” "The entire premise for this lawsuit is the myth of massive noncitizen voter fraud -- a canard that has been repeatedly debunked even by supporters of this administration," said Fred Tsao, senior policy counsel at the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (ICIRR). "We are pleased that the court saw through this ruse and dismissed the case." “Today’s ruling is a critical victory for the privacy rights of every Illinois voter,” said Ami Gandhi, Director of the Midwest Voting Rights Program with Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights. “The federal government's attempt to seize sensitive personal records was an unprecedented overreach designed to intimidate voters and fuel false narratives about our election systems. By rejecting this demand, the court has sent a clear message that our democratic process will not be weaponized to harass or suppress Illinois voters, particularly naturalized citizens and people returning home from incarceration who are disproportionately targeted by these efforts.” “We are grateful to the Court for rejecting the Trump Administration's efforts to meddle in our State’s elections and create a nationwide database that can be used to harass voters,” added Kevin Fee, Legal Director at the ACLU of Illinois. “We must continue to fight the Administration’s lies about supposed voter fraud, and its attempt to suppress voting by sowing doubt and confusion about our elections. This case is one part of that fight.” Read the court’s order dismissing the DOJ lawsuit here: https://www.aclu-il.org/app/uploads/2026/07/US-v.-Matthews-Order.pdf

FRANKFORT, Ky. — A federal court dismissed the U.S. Department of Justice's lawsuit seeking to force Kentucky election officials to disclose sensitive voter information, including voters' dates of birth, driver's license numbers, and Social Security numbers. The ruling is the seventeenth from a federal court rejecting the DOJ’s unlawful attempts to get its hands on such data. The League of Women Voters of Kentucky, the New Americans Initiative, and two individual Kentucky voters filed a motion to intervene in the case, arguing that the Department of Justice had no legal authority to compel the disclosure of Kentuckians' confidential voter information. They are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and ACLU of Kentucky. The lawsuit was part of the Trump administration's broader effort to obtain sensitive voter data from states across the country. The ACLU and its partners have challenged similar demands nationwide, warning that forcing states to hand over confidential voter records threatens voter privacy and undermines public trust in our elections. Plaintiffs and counsel released the following joint statement: "This ruling is a significant victory for Kentucky voters and their right to participate in our democracy without sacrificing their privacy. The Department of Justice has no legal basis to demand highly sensitive personal information, no doubt to weaponize it against eligible voters and chill civic participation. In a moment where President Trump continues to weaponize the DOJ against the American people and attempts to sow doubt and chaos into our elections, we are proud to have represented Kentucky voters and civic organizations in challenging this federal overreach, and will continue to defend voter privacy and access to the ballot.” Read the court’s order here: https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2026/07/066-KY-MTD-Order.pdf

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — A federal court today denied a motion for a preliminary injunction in Sherman v. Hargett, sanctioning the decision of the Tennessee General Assembly's all-white supermajority to eradicate a longstanding, naturally occurring, and geographically compact majority-Black district. The lawsuit, brought by three individual Memphis voters, the Black Clergy Collaborative of Memphis, Memphis A. Philip Randolph Institute, and The Equity Alliance, argues that the state's new congressional map unlawfully discriminates against Black voters in Memphis by dismantling a district where Black voters had long been able to meaningfully participate in the political process. The plaintiffs are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Tennessee. Although the court declined to grant preliminary relief, the underlying claims remain pending. "The decisions by this court continue to further the disenfranchisement of Black voters in Memphis,” said Amber Sherman, named plaintiff and an affected Memphis voter. “It’s painful to know we'll head into another election under a map that was designed to weaken the voices of Black voters in Memphis. We deserve the same opportunity to shape our future as anyone else. When our voting power is diluted, our neighborhoods have a harder time making their voices heard on the issues that shape our daily lives. We may not have won today's ruling, but we aren't giving up. Every voter deserves equal representation, and that's what we'll keep fighting for." “Black voters in Memphis are being forced to use a congressional map that unlawfully dilutes their political power as another critical election approaches," said Ari Savitzky, senior staff attorney with the ACLU's Voting Rights Project. "At a moment when voting rights are under attack across the country and federal officials continue testing the limits of executive power over our elections, courts should be especially vigilant in protecting communities from ongoing discrimination. We are most saddened for our clients and the Black community in Memphis, whose hard-won political power, built on generations of organizing and struggle, was ripped away by the General Assembly at the first possible opportunity. This racially motivated redistricting is wrong and harkens back to a darker time in America’s past. We will continue to fight for the rights of voters in Tennessee and elsewhere even as anti-voter state legislatures declare open season on Black voters’ fundamental right to vote.” “Today’s ruling means Black voters in Memphis will face the first election since their congressional district was split apart under a map designed to suppress their voting power,” said Lucas Cameron-Vaughn, legal director of the ACLU of Tennessee. “Tennessee lawmakers deliberately divided Black neighborhoods across multiple districts, minimizing their voting strength and their ability to elect leaders who will represent their interests. The court’s order allows this new map to govern both the August primary and November general election. We will continue fighting for a congressional map that offers a meaningful voice in the political process for every Tennessean.” The lawsuit alleges Tennessee lawmakers intentionally fractured Black communities in Shelby County by dismantling the former congressional district and dispersing Black voters across multiple districts, reducing their opportunity to elect representatives responsive to their concerns. Plaintiffs will continue litigating the case and pursuing permanent relief. Read the court’s order denying relief here: https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2026/07/062-TN-Order-Denying-PI.pdf For more information about the case, visit: https://www.aclu.org/cases/sherman-v-hargett

BOSTON – A U.S. District Court in Massachusetts ruled today that nonpartisan voting rights groups have standing and valid constitutional and statutory claims to move forward with a challenge to President Trump’s executive order (EO) restricting mail-in voting. The court reiterated earlier holdings that parts of the executive order are unconstitutional because they improperly insert the executive branch into elections, interfering with the authority of states and Congress. Among other provisions, the executive order unlawfully directs the United States Postal Service (USPS) to refuse to transmit eligible voters' ballots. The executive order has sown confusion and fear and has significantly disrupted the core of the voting rights groups’ work — to educate voters and prepare them to cast ballots. The court acknowledged this burden and added that the groups’ members “will plausibly be harmed by the EO’s implementation because those members include individuals who must rely on mail voting as they live overseas, reside out of state, have disabilities, or are unable to travel to the polls and vote in person.” The court found it “plausibly likely and imminent” that the groups’ members would be disenfranchised in the upcoming election due to the executive order. The ruling denied, in large part, the federal government and intervenor defendants’ motions to dismiss. That allows the case to move forward, including the groups’ renewed motion for a preliminary injunction to block portions of the executive order. A hearing on that motion has been scheduled for Aug. 7, 2026. The lawsuit was filed by the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, the League of Women Voters, Association of Americans Resident Overseas (AARO), U.S. Vote Foundation, OCA - Asian Pacific American Advocates (OCA), and Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. They are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), ACLU of Massachusetts, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law, Legal Defense Fund (LDF), Asian Americans Advancing Justice – AAJC (Advancing Justice – AAJC), and LatinoJustice PRLDEF. The plaintiffs and their legal counsel issued the following statement: “With the November election around the corner, the voting rights groups who filed this lawsuit should be deeply immersed in the vital work of ensuring that their members — and all eligible voters — are prepared to cast their ballots. Instead, the groups have had to limit their voter outreach and spend considerable time and money on revising materials and counseling members who are confused and fearful about the executive order’s impact on their right to vote. “We are pleased that the court recognized the disruption and chaos caused by the executive order and ruled that our clients’ claims can move forward. We are committed to fighting this unconstitutional and unlawful executive order and to protecting the right to vote, including the ability to vote by mail.” A copy of the court’s ruling can be found here: https://www.aclum.org/app/uploads/2026/04/Memorandum-and-Order-7.22.26.pdf