Department of Justice Oversight

U.S. District Judge Mustafa Kasubhai said he will dismiss the Trump Justice Department’s lawsuit seeking Oregon’s unredacted voter rolls and will issue a written opinion, marking a second federal‑court rebuff after an earlier California ruling. The decision, part of the DOJ’s multi‑state effort that has sued at least 23 states and D.C., drew praise from Oregon AG Dan Rayfield—who said federal voting laws cannot be used as a “backdoor” to obtain dates of birth, driver’s‑license numbers and partial Social Security numbers—and has prompted criticism, including over a related letter to Minnesota officials seen by critics as a coercive bid for detailed voter data.

U.S. District Judge Mustafa Kasubhai in Oregon has dismissed a Justice Department lawsuit seeking the state’s full, unredacted voter registration database, marking another major defeat for the Trump administration’s multi‑state push to collect detailed voter data from the states. At a Monday hearing, Kasubhai granted Oregon’s motion to dismiss and said a written opinion will follow, after state Attorney General Dan Rayfield argued DOJ never satisfied the legal standard to demand names, dates of birth, residential addresses, driver’s license numbers and partial Social Security numbers for every registered voter. The ruling comes on the heels of similar setbacks in California — where a judge called DOJ’s request "unprecedented and illegal" — and in Georgia, where a case was tossed on venue grounds, even as Attorney General Pam Bondi continues to press governors like Minnesota’s Tim Walz to open voter rolls as a condition of "helping bring back law and order" on immigration. Election officials and civil‑rights advocates have warned that the department may be trying to repurpose sensitive voter data for non‑election uses, including hunting for noncitizens, a concern amplified by Bondi’s recent letter tying voter‑roll access to demands for state Medicaid and food‑assistance records and repeal of sanctuary laws. The Oregon dismissal adds judicial weight to those privacy and overreach arguments and signals that, for now, federal courts are unwilling to let DOJ build a de facto national voter file under existing voting‑rights statutes.

House Democrats led by Rep. Jamie Raskin and Rep. Jared Moskowitz have formally asked Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan to open a congressional inquiry into the Trump Justice Department’s criminal investigation of Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, calling it a "sham" probe and a "systematic assault" on central‑bank independence. Their letter urges Jordan to hold public hearings and consider subpoenaing Attorney General Pam Bondi and other DOJ officials after Powell revealed Sunday that prosecutors were threatening indictment over his June 2025 Senate testimony on costly renovations of the Fed’s headquarters. The investigation is being run by U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro in Washington, who says Powell ignored repeated outreach about cost overruns and insists "indictment" has been raised only by Powell, not her office. Powell argues the real aim is to bully the Fed into cutting interest rates faster in line with President Trump’s public demands, while Trump denies ordering the probe but continues to attack Powell as "not very good" at the job. The clash has already rattled lawmakers in both parties, raising fresh alarms about politicization of the Justice Department and the erosion of the Fed’s traditional insulation from White House pressure at a time when it is still managing inflation and rate cuts.