The ProPublica investigation, “Devoid of Any Factual Basis”: Again and Again, Judges Have Dismissed Trump’s Voter Data Lawsuits, examines the Trump administration’s efforts to obtain unredacted voter registration records from states across the United States. Published on October 16, 2026, the report by Lucas Waldron and Peter Elkind describes how the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed lawsuits against 30 states and Washington, D.C., beginning in September 2025, seeking access to voter rolls containing confidential information about millions of Americans. The administration maintained that obtaining these records was necessary to enforce federal election laws and investigate allegations of noncitizen voting. However, the initiative raised significant concerns about voter privacy, federal authority over elections, and the potential use of sensitive information for purposes beyond election administration.

The investigation documents two principal legal strategies employed by the DOJ. In its first seven lawsuits, the department relied on President Donald Trump’s March 2025 executive order concerning election integrity and federal voting laws, arguing that these authorities permitted it to compel states to provide their unredacted voter lists. Federal judges rejected this interpretation, concluding that the cited laws required states to maintain accurate voter registration systems but did not grant the federal government the broad authority to demand the records. All seven lawsuits were dismissed. Several judges also questioned whether the administration was using election integrity as a justification for pursuing broader objectives, including restricting voting rights and expanding federal access to voter information.

The DOJ subsequently pursued another 19 lawsuits under Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960, a provision originally intended to preserve election records and support investigations into voting discrimination. The department argued that the law granted the attorney general extensive authority to obtain state voter records to investigate potential noncitizen voting. Judges rejected this interpretation as well, finding that Title III did not provide the government with the claimed authority to obtain existing voter rolls. Courts also highlighted the apparent contradiction between the administration’s demand for records and federal laws requiring states to maintain and update accurate voter registration lists. As a result, all 19 lawsuits brought under this second strategy were dismissed.

A particularly significant aspect of the investigation is the breadth of judicial opposition to the administration’s legal arguments. At the time of publication, all 26 lawsuits that had received final rulings had been rejected by their respective judges. Those judges included eight appointed by Trump, four appointed by former Republican President George W. Bush, and 14 appointed by Democratic presidents. The report highlights judicial opinions questioning the factual justification for the lawsuits and expressing concern that the administration was attempting to repurpose laws designed to protect voting rights into mechanisms for restricting access to the ballot.

The report also notes that an appeals court upheld the dismissal of the Michigan case, reinforcing the legal challenges facing the administration’s approach.

The investigation concludes by documenting the continuing legal and institutional conflict surrounding the initiative. Four cases remained undecided, one state had reached a settlement, and the administration had appealed most of its losses, while indicating that it might ultimately seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court. Separately, on October 9, 2026, a federal judge ruled that the DOJ’s broader effort to acquire and share state voter registration records constituted an unlawful abuse of its authority. The department stated that it was reviewing that ruling and maintained that its lawyers were acting in good faith.

Overall, ProPublica presents the lawsuits as a substantial legal setback for the Trump administration’s effort to expand federal access to state voter registration data. The central issue is not simply whether noncitizen voting should be investigated, but whether the federal government can use the statutes cited by the DOJ to compel states to surrender sensitive voter information. The report illustrates how the courts have acted as a check on executive authority, emphasizing the legal boundaries surrounding federal election oversight, the protection of personal information, and the longstanding role of states in administering elections.