Immigrant Group Sues to Stop Homeland Security from Using Databases to Purge Voters

CHIRLA filed a federal lawsuit in Washington, D.C., on September 2, 2026, seeking to stop the Trump administration from using federal databases to examine voter rolls. The immigrant rights group says the effort could wrongly flag naturalized citizens and threaten their right to vote.

The complaint names the Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin and Attorney General Todd Blanche as defendants. It asks a federal court to block what plaintiffs describe as a “list matching exercise/voter purge” involving California and local election officials.

The case also seeks to stop the administration’s review of California’s voter list and rescind a letter requesting voter information from the state. The plaintiffs say eligible citizens could be forced to prove citizenship or lose their registrations.

Angelica Salas, the group’s executive director, said the government’s approach treats citizenship differently depending on where a person was born.

“Naturalized citizens are Americans. They took the oath. They earned their citizenship, and they have the same rights as every other American citizen.”

At a Los Angeles news conference, Salas called the effort an “attack on the freedom to vote” and added, “This is voter intimidation.”

The March order put federal citizenship lists at the center of the dispute

The lawsuit targets an effort tied to President Donald Trump’s March 31, 2026 executive order, Executive Order No. 14399, titled “Ensuring Citizenship and Integrity in Federal Elections.” The order directs DHS and SSA to compile and share citizenship lists with election officials.

The White House has cited the order while claiming that more than 278,000 non-citizens are registered nationwide, including 190,000 in California. The lawsuit focuses on a separate administration claim that 190,832 people on California’s voter rolls may be noncitizens.

That California figure sits at the center of the dispute. The complaint says officials may be comparing voter rolls with undisclosed federal databases that contain outdated or erroneous information.

Older records can create a particular problem for naturalized citizens, the plaintiffs say. A record that once identified a person as a noncitizen may not reflect a later naturalization.

A name match cannot establish that two records belong to one person

Michael Rios, a senior data scientist with the UCLA Voting Rights Project, warned that matching records without a unique identifier can produce false results.

“Unless databases have a unique identifier to merge them by, a similar name, birthdate, or address cannot establish that two records represent the same person.”

The concern extends beyond citizenship status. A similar name, birthdate or address may point officials toward the wrong person when databases lack a reliable way to distinguish individuals.

The complaint says that error could push a lawful voter into an unnecessary review. A person could be required to prove citizenship, face extra scrutiny or see a registration canceled.

Plaintiffs say the government’s proposed process turns uncertain data into an enforcement trigger. The lawsuit asks the court to prevent that process from reaching California’s voter rolls while the claims proceed.

The case raises eight claims about federal power over state registration

The complaint brings eight claims, including alleged violations of the Privacy Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Elections Clause, due process and equal protection.

The plaintiffs argue that the executive branch has no independent power to take over state voter-registration systems. They also say Congress never authorized federal data-matching for this purpose.

The complaint characterizes the administration’s actions as unconstitutional. Its requested relief would cover the review of California’s voter list, the information request sent to the state and the matching process described by the plaintiffs.

The legal challenge therefore reaches beyond the accuracy of individual records. It also contests the federal government’s authority to direct or conduct this kind of review of state election systems.

The administration describes the program as enforcement against unlawful voting

DHS has said it is “laser focused on prosecuting and removing aliens who vote.” The Center for Election Innovation & Research describes non-citizen voting as “extremely small.”

Critics argue that claims about non-citizen voting represent less than one-tenth of one percent of registered voters. Those competing assessments shape the dispute over whether broad database screening is justified.

Pedro Trujillo, a naturalized citizen, joined the lawsuit to oppose what he called “voter intimidation.” He said the administration’s approach is “creating second-class citizenship where naturalized citizens are not given the rights they have earned.”

Trujillo’s participation puts an individual voter inside the legal challenge. The complaint says naturalized citizens who are “lawfully eligible to vote” now face fear and extra scrutiny because older federal records can misclassify them as noncitizens.

The plaintiffs say that possibility could discourage eligible citizens from participating even when no registration is ultimately canceled. The administration frames the same effort as a response to unlawful voting.

The lawsuit joins a broader federal review of voter registrations

The case arrives amid a wider effort to screen voter registrations through federal systems. The related figures include:

At least 67 million registrations, mainly from Republican-controlled states, have gone through the expanded verification program called SAVE. Tens of thousands were flagged as possible noncitizens or dead people.

Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan had already sided with advocacy groups that argued upgrades to SAVE could wrongly purge voters. That dispute adds another court challenge to the federal use of databases in election administration.

A separate federal court order entered in California on August 28, 2026, temporarily stayed parts of a USPS final rule connected to the broader election database-and-mail-ballot regime. The order came before the November 3, 2026 election.

The California proceeding concerns database and mail-ballot rules rather than the specific claims brought by the immigrant rights group. Both cases involve disputes over federal involvement in election administration.

States and advocacy groups are pursuing related election-law challenges before the midterms. They say federal measures could confuse or suppress lawful voters, while the administration describes its program as an effort to identify unlawful voting.

The federal case now places the California information request and voter-list review before the court. The litigation will also address whether federal agencies may use shared records for that purpose and what protections must apply before officials act on a possible match.

This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified immigration attorney about your specific case.