California scored a key victory Thursday against the Trump administration over access to the names and personal information of the state’s 23 million voters, persuading a federal judge to dismiss a Justice Department lawsuit filed last year demanding the data.

The ruling by Judge David O. Carter of the U.S. District Court in Santa Ana, California, appears to thwart the federal government’s efforts to comb through the election rolls in the nation’s most populous state to potentially challenge voters’ eligibility.

About two dozen states are defending themselves from similar lawsuits filed by the Trump administration, which has sought to build a national voter roll with the information.

Many of those states are governed by Democrats, who have argued that the release of sensitive information, such as driver’s license numbers and partial Social Security numbers, would be unconstitutional and would have a chilling effect on elections.

President Donald Trump and his allies have continued to spread false claims about voter fraud and states allowing noncitizens to cast ballots.

“The taking of democracy does not occur in one fell swoop; it is chipped away piece-by-piece until there is nothing left,” Carter wrote. “The case before the court is one of these cuts that imperils all Americans. The erosion of privacy and rolling back of voting rights is a decision for open and public debate within the legislative branch, not the executive.”

The 33-Page Decision

In the 33-page decision, Carter, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, said that releasing voters’ personal information would violate a plethora of federal and state privacy laws. He said the Justice Department was seeking to use civil rights legislation to “amass and retain an unprecedented amount of confidential voter data.”

“The Constitution demands such respect, and the executive may not unilaterally usurp the authority over elections it seeks to do so here,” Carter wrote.

It was not immediately clear if the Trump administration planned to appeal the decision.

The White House referred questions on the ruling Thursday to the Justice Department, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In a statement Thursday, Shirley N. Weber, California’s secretary of state and a Democrat who was named as a defendant in the case, praised the lawsuit’s dismissal.

“As California secretary of state, I am entrusted with ensuring that California’s state election laws are enforced — including state laws that protect the privacy of Californians’ data,” Weber said. “I will continue to uphold my promise to Californians to protect our democracy, and I will continue to challenge this administration’s disregard for the rule of law and our right to vote.”

A day earlier, a federal court upheld California’s new congressional maps, rejecting claims by Republicans and the Trump administration that they were unconstitutional.

“Back-to-back days now of Trump and his Administration losing to California,” the press office of Gov. Gavin Newsom wrote on social media on Thursday.

Trump Clings to Voter Fraud Claims

Despite carrying all seven battleground states in the 2024 presidential election, which he won by more than 2 million votes, Trump has clung to unsupported claims about widespread voter fraud and clashed with political adversaries over voter lists.

In Oregon, another state that is being sued, the Justice Department’s case also appeared to be unraveling.

On Wednesday, a federal judge in that state, voicing skepticism about giving the federal government unfettered access to voter data, signaled that he was leaning toward dismissing that lawsuit, the newspaper The Oregonian reported.

In California, the NAACP, the League of Women Voters of California and several other voting rights groups joined the legal fray to fight the lawsuit.

“Voters should never have to choose between privacy and their right to vote,” Jenny Farrell, the league’s executive director, said in an interview Thursday.

—

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

By Neil Vigdor and Rylee Kirk/Gabriela Bhaskar
c. 2026 The New York Times Company