Judge blocks DHS voter operations in nine states

The order on DHS voter operations A federal judge has barred the Department of Homeland Security from conducting certain election related field operations and field interviews in nine states until polls close on Election Day, November 3, 2026. United States District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin issued the preliminary injunction on October 21, 2026, in the Northern District of California. The order covers California, Connecticut, Georgia, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin. The injunction bars DHS voter operations involving people the department knows or reasonably should suspect are United States citizens. It also bars DHS voter operations that rest only on the department's voter matching records, without further investigation. The order took effect at 5 p.m. on October 23, after a short pause that gave the federal government time to seek emergency review in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It remains in place until 8 p.m. on November 3 or until polls close on Election Day, unless a court changes it or an appeals court intervenes. The case concerns the department's "Unlawful Voter Initiative," which began in August 2026. Guidance issued on August 31, 2026, prioritised voter eligibility field investigations under the Unlawful Voter Initiative, according to court reporting. The plaintiffs say the DHS voter operations rely on records that misidentify citizens as noncitizens and send agents to question people at their homes in the final weeks before an election. ## Who brought the challenge to DHS voter operations The lawsuit was filed on September 21, 2026, by the California Nurses Association, National Nurses United, the Voto Latino Foundation, the City and County of San Francisco and Santa Clara County. Protect Democracy and the National Immigration Law Center represent the unions and Voto Latino, and the two local governments represent themselves. The claims rest on the Voting Rights Act, the Administrative Procedure Act and the United States Constitution. Judge Martinez-Olguin found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that the government ran afoul of the Voting Rights Act ban on intimidating voter assistance and mobilisation. She found that the government relied on citizenship data with a high likelihood of error, and that publicised arrests and home visits created an objectively reasonable fear that deters citizens from voting or helping others vote. She wrote that the public interest in elections free from interference or intimidation outweighed the government's stated interest in preventing unlawful voting by noncitizens. The judge described the target lists as voluminous and unreliable, according to reporting on the 19 page ruling. She found there were already signs that the lists contained errors and included naturalised citizens. The ruling does not block criminal cases against noncitizens accused of voting, and it does not stop the department from investigating people it reasonably believes are noncitizens. It limits DHS voter operations aimed at likely citizens and the use of matching data alone to target them. ## What the ruling means before Election Day The nine states in the order are the states where court filings said officers were told to prioritise the investigations. The DHS voter operations covered by the order are part of a wider federal push to identify noncitizen voters in the run-up to the midterm elections. The administration has said large numbers of noncitizens are registered to vote in some states, a claim that has been disputed. Protect Democracy, which represents some of the plaintiffs, welcomed the ruling. Beau Tremitiere, counsel at Protect Democracy, said the court affirmed that citizens should be able to exercise the vote without armed government agents harassing them. He said the department built its lists on flawed data, never checked how often the data was wrong, and sent agents to people's homes weeks before an election. The department has not yet said whether it will seek a stay from the appeals court, and the underlying case continues while the injunction on DHS voter operations is in force.