Judge Sooknanan Vacates DOJ's Voter List Maintenance Policy in Common Cause v. DOJ: Vacatur Only, With No Order on Data Already Transferred

On October 9, 2026, Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs in Common Cause v. DOJ (1:26-cv-01352) and vacated the Justice Department’s Voter List Maintenance Policy. The order (ECF 52) reads: “The Court sets aside and vacates the Defendants’ Voter List Maintenance Policy, which is defined in the Court’s Memorandum Opinion, ECF No. 51.” It directs the clerk to terminate the case and states: “This is an appealable final order.”

What the court defined as the policy

The 78-page opinion (ECF 51, pp. 9-10) describes the policy as the Civil Rights Division requesting states’ unredacted voter rolls, disclosing the lists to other federal agencies, comparing them against a federal database to identify purportedly ineligible voters, and demanding that states remove voters based on the results. Its conclusion (p. 76) is that the policy “exceeds DOJ’s statutory authority in numerous respects, is arbitrary and capricious, and is contrary to law.” The court found the Privacy Act violated by the collection (no covering system-of-records notice) and by the disclosures (pp. 60-65). It did not reach the constitutional claims.

The ICE and HSI portion

The opinion describes a separate arrangement under which DOJ agreed to provide state voter registration lists to Homeland Security Investigations (pp. 12-13), citing the administrative-record letters of March 6 and March 12, 2026; see 2026-03-12–ice-hsi-asks-doj-for-state-voter-lists-doj-grants-dhs-access. On the Privacy Act routine use DOJ relied on, the court wrote that the Defendants “cannot rely on that routine use for mass disclosures to ICE with no indication whatsoever that there has been a violation of immigration law” (p. 65).

What the ruling does and does not do

• It vacates a policy. The remedy is vacatur under the Administrative Procedure Act.
• It issues no injunction. The plaintiffs asked for one in the alternative; the court wrote that it “does not address the propriety of additional injunctive relief” (p. 76 n.21).
• It orders nothing about data already transferred. The opinion grants no relief requiring deletion, destruction, sequestration or return of records.
• DHS, ICE and HSI are not parties. The defendants are the Department of Justice and its Attorney General.

A Justice Department spokesperson said the agency is reviewing the decision, CBS News reported. No appeal, stay motion or compliance filing appeared on the docket as of October 10, 2026.

What is not established

• Whether HSI still holds or uses the state voter lists after October 9. No filing or official statement read addresses it.
• What DHS “enriched” the lists with and returned to DOJ under the March 12 arrangement, and whether it did.
• Whether the vacatur reaches data DHS received under the vacated policy. The order does not say, and DHS is not a party.
• Whether DOJ will appeal. A notice of appeal is due within 60 days; none had been filed as of October 10.
• Commentary that the ruling bars DOJ from using records it already holds is a reading of what vacatur implies; the order’s text does not say it.

Related

• 2026-05-19–common-cause-partial-summary-judgment-doj-national-voter-database
• 2026-06-22–sooknanan-blocks-save-voter-purge-database-unlawful
• 2026-09-01–dhs-hsi-voter-fraud-surge-nine-states-midterms