On October 20, 2026, the Democratic Senatorial, Congressional and Governors' committees, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, the Nevada State Democratic Party and a California voter sued Trump, the Justice Department, Attorney General Todd Blanche, the Department of Homeland Security and Secretary Markwayne Mullin in federal court in Washington (DSCC v. Trump, No. 1:26-cv-03674, assigned to Chief Judge James Boasberg). The complaint brings four counts: ultra vires executive action, violation of the vertical separation of powers, violation of the anticommandeering doctrine, and voter intimidation under Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act. It asks the court to “Enjoin Defendants from continuing to unconstitutionally impose themselves upon election administration procedures that the Constitution and federal law assign to the States,” including the removal of registered voters, the issuance of ballots, and “the counting and tabulation of ballots,” and to stop “threats” against state and local election officials.
The suit is separate from the party committees' September 23 case over federal agents at polling places (DSCC v. ICE, No. 1:26-cv-03330), which does not name Trump. No motion for emergency relief had been filed as of October 21. A Justice Department spokesperson told Axios, “The Justice Department enforces federal election law, and election integrity is a top priority.” The plaintiffs are represented by the Elias Law Group, whose chair founded Democracy Docket. The conduct the suit challenges is documented in Supreme Court Rejects Trump Bid to Set Aside California Ballots Tied to a Disputed Federal List of About 20,000 Names, The Justice Department Warned Election Officials in All 50 States They Could Be Prosecuted, Then Told Utah's Republican Election Chief She Is 'Under Investigation' and Trump's DOJ Is Now 0-for-26 on Voter Roll Lawsuits, Losing Every Resolved Case for Access to States' Voter Rolls.
Update (October 30, 2026): On October 26 the plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (Dkt. 19), alongside an emergency motion for expedited discovery (Dkt. 16), the docket shows. Chief Judge Boasberg heard both by Zoom on October 29. In a minute order that day he granted the discovery motion in part: “By 12:00 noon on October 30, 2026, Defendants shall answer Plaintiffs' Proposed Interrogatory No. 1 for the time period July 1, 2026, to present.” He set a standing supplement for October 31 and a response for November 1, and wrote, “The Court will rule by November 2, 2026.” He added that the defendants “may moot this process at any time by filing a notice indicating that they will not engage in the conduct sought to be enjoined in connection with the upcoming election.”
The interrogatory asks the government to identify every state where it asked election officials to remove specific registered voters, refuse them ballots, or segregate or not count their ballots, according to Marc Elias, whose firm represents the plaintiffs; he wrote that the department had wanted to limit it to the last 30 days. Democracy Docket reported that Boasberg “has so far appeared skeptical about whether the groups have standing to sue.”
On October 30 the defendants told the court (Dkt. 29) that they had served the plaintiffs with “objections, responses, and a list of States”; the list itself was not filed. According to Democracy Docket, which says it obtained the response, the Justice Department named California and Washington and DHS named California, Nevada, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, all letters already made public. The department said it withheld “informal oral communications, conversations or meetings not memorialized in any record” and argued that the DHS letters “ask state election officials to work with DHS to verify whether individuals identified in a preliminary analysis are non-citizens who are registered to vote.”
The filing also disclosed, Democracy Docket reported, that on October 29 the department sent letters to all states telling officials to preserve federal election records for 22 months and pointing to penalties of up to a year in prison and a $1,000 fine. “It is a crime to willfully fail to comply with Section 20701,” Acting Deputy Attorney General R. Trent McCotter wrote. Democracy Docket was founded by Elias, and the tracker has not seen the response itself; its contents here rest on that outlet's account. No ruling had been issued when this update was written.
Update (October 31, 2026): In a separate case brought by unions and civil rights groups, Judge Trina Thompson of the Northern District of California issued a temporary restraining order on October 30 barring the Justice Department and DHS from much of the conduct challenged here (see Judge Bars the Justice Department and DHS From Threatening Election Workers Over Ballots of Voters Flagged as Noncitizens). No ruling in this case had appeared on the docket as of the defendants' October 30 filing.
Update (November 2, 2026): Chief Judge Boasberg denied the motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction on November 2 for lack of standing (Dkts. 33, 34). “Even extraordinary merits questions cannot justify the extraordinary relief of a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order if those seeking it lack standing,” his 25-page opinion begins. The ruling denies emergency relief only; the case was not dismissed, and the court did not decide whether the federal demands are lawful.
Boasberg wrote that “Plaintiffs present no evidence demonstrating that any state has acquiesced and removed a voter from the rolls or segregated her ballot based on the Government's letters,” and added, “Had state officials capitulated in the face of the Administration's browbeating, this may well have been a different case.” He also recited the Nevada episode, citing the complaint and a Nevada email: the federal government first claimed 15,903 potential noncitizens on the rolls, then told the state that “a paltry 185 of the 15,903” were confirmed. Nevada checked each of the 185. “It found that none was a non-citizen.”
He wrote that in a related case brought by different California plaintiffs, those plaintiffs “are likely to establish standing and likely to succeed on the merits of their claim in seeking to enjoin Defendants from sending further letters to California,” and said he had issued an order there (see Supreme Court Rejects Trump Bid to Set Aside California Ballots Tied to a Disputed Federal List of About 20,000 Names).
Correction: this entry said the individual plaintiff is a Nevada voter. Boasberg's opinion identifies him as a registered California voter; the sentence has been corrected.