Updates
EPIC Urges First and Seventh Circuits to Protect Voter Privacy and Refuse DOJ’s Voter Roll Demand
August 27, 2026
EPIC filed four amicus briefs this week urging the First and Seventh Circuit to rebuff the Department of Justice’s unlawful demand for voter rolls. EPIC was represented by pro bono counsel from Wilmer Hale.
Since last May, the DOJ has baselessly demanded that nearly every state and Washington DC hand over unredacted voting registration lists as part of the administration’s wider efforts to suppress voting. These voting registration lists contain highly sensitive, personally identifiable information on millions of voters, including driver’s license numbers and partial or full Social Security Numbers. The DOJ has sued 30 states and Washington, DC for refusing to provide the unredacted voter registration lists. So far, 23 District Courts have dismissed the DOJ’s suit and found its claims meritless. Despite its staggering losses, DOJ has appealed to multiple federal courts of appeals.
EPIC’s amicus briefs were filed in support of four different states. Three were in the First Circuit: United States v. Amore (Rhode Island), United States v. Bellows (Maine), and United States v. Galvin (Massachusetts). The last was in the Seventh Circuit: United States v. Wisconsin Election Commission et al (Wisconsin).
In the briefs, EPIC argues that DOJ’s demand violates several federal privacy and data security laws. As EPIC has noted before, DOJ has failed to comply with even basic data security standards. In addition, DOJ’s demand for state voter rolls is an illegal demand for records on how Americans exercise their First Amendment rights. DOJ has also failed to comply with key transparency and oversight requirements despite already collecting voter roll data from several states. As the brief explains, DOJ’s actions violate the Privacy Act, the Federal Information Security Modernization Act, and the E-Government Act.
These briefs are part of EPIC’s ongoing efforts to fight the administration’s illegal collection of state voter information, misuse of personal information, and attempted creation of national data banks. EPIC previously filed three amicus briefs in the Ninth and Sixth Circuits urging the courts to rebuff the DOJ’s unlawful demand for California’s, Oregon’s, and Michigan’s unredacted voter rolls. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of DOJ’s suit against Michigan and subsequently denied DOJ’s petition for en banc review.
Support Our Work
EPIC's work is funded by the support of individuals like you, who allow us to continue to protect privacy, open government, and democratic values in the information age.
Donate
Facts Only
* EPIC filed four amicus briefs in the First and Seventh Circuits on August 27, 2026.
* Wilmer Hale provided pro bono counsel for EPIC.
* The Department of Justice (DOJ) has requested unredacted voter registration lists from nearly every state and Washington DC.
* These lists include driver’s license numbers and partial or full Social Security Numbers.
* The DOJ has filed lawsuits against 30 states and Washington, DC.
* 23 District Courts have dismissed the DOJ’s suits.
* EPIC’s briefs support Rhode Island (United States v. Amore), Maine (United States v. Bellows), Massachusetts (United States v. Galvin), and Wisconsin (United States v. Wisconsin Election Commission et al).
* EPIC argues the demands violate the Privacy Act, the Federal Information Security Modernization Act, and the E-Government Act.
* EPIC previously filed amicus briefs in the Ninth and Sixth Circuits regarding California, Oregon, and Michigan.
* The Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit against Michigan and denied a petition for en banc review.
Executive Summary
The Department of Justice is engaged in a legal conflict with numerous states and Washington, DC, over the acquisition of unredacted voter registration lists. These datasets contain sensitive personally identifiable information, including Social Security and driver’s license numbers. While the DOJ has sued 30 jurisdictions to compel the release of this data, the majority of District Courts—23 to date—have dismissed these claims as meritless.
EPIC has intervened by filing amicus briefs in the First and Seventh Circuits, arguing that the federal government's demands violate established privacy, data security, and transparency laws, specifically the Privacy Act and the E-Government Act. This effort is part of a broader legal strategy to prevent the creation of national data banks and the collection of records detailing First Amendment activities. The conflict remains active as the DOJ continues to appeal lower court losses to federal courts of appeals.
Full Take
The strongest version of this narrative is that the federal government is overstepping its authority by attempting to bypass state privacy protections to create a centralized, sensitive database of citizens' political participation, risking both data security and constitutional liberties.
The narrative employs a load-bearing "Fear Appeal," framing the DOJ's legal requests not merely as a jurisdictional dispute, but as "wider efforts to suppress voting" and the "attempted creation of national data banks." By linking a legal demand for records to a systemic effort to undermine democracy, the prose shifts from legal analysis to an urgent warning of existential threat.
Patterns detected: ARC-0043 Emotional exploitation
This situation echoes the historical tension between national security/administrative oversight and individual privacy. The unstated assumption is that once data is centralized in a federal "data bank," its potential for misuse outweighs any legitimate administrative purpose the DOJ might claim for the records.
The implication is a significant shift in the balance of power between state and federal governments regarding the stewardship of citizen data. If the DOJ prevails, it establishes a precedent for federal access to highly sensitive PII without the usual redactions, potentially chilling political expression.
Bridge Questions: What specific administrative or legal purpose has the DOJ cited to justify the need for unredacted Social Security numbers? How do the data security standards of the DOJ compare to those of the states refusing the request?
Counterstrike Scan: A coordinated campaign would use "urgent" language and a tally of "staggering losses" to frame the government as both malicious and incompetent to mobilize donor support. While the tone is highly emotive, the claims are anchored in specific, verifiable court cases, meaning it does not fully align with a baseless influence operation.
Sentinel — Human
This text appears to be factual reporting on legal advocacy efforts by an organization, structured around documented court proceedings and filed arguments.