A Trump-appointed federal judge in Michigan dismissed the Department of Justice's lawsuit seeking access to the state's voter registration data, ruling Tuesday that none of the three federal laws cited by the DOJ actually require states to hand over the information.

According to The Hill, U.S. District Judge Hala Jarbou, the chief judge for the Western District of Michigan, granted motions to dismiss the case, citing a failure to state a claim. Her ruling marks the third federal court to reject similar DOJ lawsuits in recent weeks, following decisions in California and Oregon earlier this year.

Three laws, zero authority

The DOJ had argued it possessed authority to demand complete voter registration lists under three statutes: the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), and the Civil Rights Act of 1960 (CRA). Judge Jarbou dismantled each argument in turn:

"HAVA does not require the disclosure of any records, the NVRA does not require the disclosure of voter registration lists because they are not records concerning the implementation of list maintenance procedures, and the CRA does not require the disclosure of voter registration lists because they are not documents that come into the possession of election officials."

That's a clean sweep — three statutory claims, three rejections. The judge went further, warning that reading the NVRA to compel disclosure of private voter information could impose an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote under the First Amendment.

That's not a narrow procedural ruling. That's a constitutional guardrail.

How this unfolded

The Justice Department sent a letter to Michigan officials in July 2025 requesting the full names, birth dates, addresses, driver's license numbers, and partial Social Security numbers for every registered voter in the state. Michigan responded in September by providing a redacted version of its voter roll — one that withheld personally identifiable information, which the state said was necessary to comply with both state and federal law.

The DOJ sued later that month.

Michigan wasn't alone. The Justice Department has sued 24 states plus Washington, D.C., for refusing to provide their complete statewide voter registration lists. At least 11 states have either complied or indicated they will. The lawsuit campaign, led by Attorney General Pam Bondi, spans the country — though coverage has focused disproportionately on Democratic-led states, the list of targets includes Republican-led states like Georgia as well.

A pattern the courts aren't buying

Three federal judges have now reached the same conclusion: the statutes don't say what the DOJ claims they say. On January 15, federal Judge David O. Carter dismissed the parallel lawsuit in California. Around the same time, U.S. District Judge Mustafa Kasubhai threw out the case against Oregon's Secretary of State Tobias Read.

When one judge rules against you, it's a setback. When three do — including one appointed by a Republican president — it's a signal that the legal theory needs rethinking.

Election integrity is a serious cause. It deserves a serious legal strategy. The DOJ's effort to secure voter data may be well-intentioned, but federal courts are sending a clear message: the statutory basis isn't there. If the administration believes it needs access to this data to protect election integrity, the honest path runs through Congress, not through creative readings of existing law that judges keep rejecting.

The real stakes

Conservatives have every reason to care about clean voter rolls. Dead registrants, duplicate entries, and outdated addresses are real problems that erode public confidence in elections. But the mechanism matters. Demanding Social Security numbers and driver's license data for millions of voters and suing when states push back hands Democrats an easy narrative about voter intimidation and federal overreach. It lets them play defense on an issue where they should be playing offense.

Michigan didn't refuse to cooperate entirely. It provided a redacted voter roll. The dispute was over the personal details — the kind of information that, if mishandled or breached, would become the story for a decade.

There's a version of voter integrity enforcement that puts Democrats on their heels: targeted audits, cooperation with willing states to build momentum, and legislative action to modernize federal data-sharing frameworks. What doesn't work is a legal theory that three courts have now buried.