Federal Judge Dismisses DOJ Lawsuit Seeking Rhode Island Voters' Non-Public Data
A federal judge dismissed the Justice Department's lawsuit seeking Rhode Island voters' non-public data.
U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy dismissed the suit on April 17, 2026 and called the DOJ's demands a prohibited "fishing expedition." The DOJ had sought unredacted voter-roll fields for nearly 750,000 registered Rhode Island voters, including dates of birth, addresses, driver license numbers and partial Social Security numbers. DOJ lawyers said they wanted the unredacted lists to share with the Department of Homeland Security to check citizenship status, an approach judges elsewhere have rejected. Courts in California, Massachusetts, Michigan and Oregon have already rejected similar requests, and at least a dozen states have provided or promised detailed voter lists to the DOJ. Those states include Alaska, Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Wyoming. The ruling drew attention on social media and news pages, with outlets such as CBS News posting about the decision.
Coverage has shifted from initial DOJ action toward steady judicial pushback. Early reports focused on the DOJ's effort to verify voter citizenship and its broad requests in dozens of states. Newer reporting, led by outlets including PBS and state court rulings, has emphasized judges rejecting those demands as overbroad and legally unjustified. That shift matters because it reframes the story from administrative data checks to a legal fight over privacy and the federal government's reach.
📌 Key Facts
- Federal Judge Mary McElroy dismissed the Justice Department's lawsuit seeking non-public data on nearly 750,000 registered Rhode Island voters, rejecting the DOJ's bid to force turnover.
- McElroy said the DOJ was conducting a 'fishing expedition' and dismissed the entire lawsuit rather than just a particular request.
- The DOJ had sought sensitive voter-roll fields, including dates of birth, addresses, driver license numbers and partial Social Security numbers.
- DOJ attorneys acknowledged they wanted unredacted voter rolls to share with the Department of Homeland Security to check voters' citizenship status.
- McElroy adopted reasoning from an Oregon ruling that the DOJ is not entitled to unredacted voter lists and found the DOJ had not alleged any actual Rhode Island violations of list‑maintenance requirements.
- The ruling comes amid a broader DOJ campaign that has sued at least 30 states and Washington, D.C.; judges in California, Massachusetts, Michigan and Oregon have rejected similar efforts.
- At least 12 states — Alaska, Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Wyoming — have already provided or promised detailed voter lists to the DOJ.
📰 Source Timeline (3)
Follow how coverage of this story developed over time
- Clarifies that Judge Mary McElroy dismissed the entire DOJ lawsuit, not just a particular request, calling it a prohibited 'fishing expedition.'
- Specifies the sensitive fields DOJ sought: dates of birth, addresses, driver license numbers, and partial Social Security numbers.
- Reports DOJ attorneys acknowledged they wanted unredacted rolls to share with the Department of Homeland Security to check citizenship status.
- Details that DOJ has sued at least 30 states and Washington, D.C., and that judges have rejected similar efforts in California, Massachusetts, Michigan and Oregon.
- Lists at least 12 states that have already provided or promised detailed voter lists: Alaska, Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Wyoming.
- Notes McElroy adopted reasoning from an Oregon ruling that DOJ is not entitled to unredacted voter lists and had not alleged any actual Rhode Island violations of list-maintenance requirements.
- Mini-report specifies that a federal judge rejected the DOJ's bid to force Rhode Island to turn over non-public data on nearly 750,000 registered voters.
- The judge explicitly accused the Justice Department of trying to conduct a "fishing expedition."