Lawsuit Challenges USCIS Voter Registration Ban at Citizenship Oaths

A broad coalition of voting rights and civic groups is suing USCIS over a new ban on voter registration drives at citizenship oath ceremonies, arguing that the policy will keep thousands of new Americans from registering to vote just as they officially become citizens. The federal lawsuit, filed on November 7, 2025, challenges a policy shift that took effect on August 29, 2025, and targets U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other federal officials.

Background: long‑running practice halted

For more than a decade, USCIS allowed nonpartisan civic organizations to offer voter registration help at naturalization events, especially when local election officials could not attend in person. Under that system:

• Groups such as the League of Women Voters and the National Council of Jewish Women were able to sit at tables just outside the ceremony room.
• Volunteers would hand out voter registration forms, answer basic questions, and help new citizens complete paperwork before they left the building.

According to the complaint, that practice ended abruptly when USCIS issued a new directive this summer barring non‑governmental organizations from providing registration assistance at citizenship oath ceremonies nationwide.

Who brought the lawsuit and what they claim

The lawsuit was brought by:

• League of Women Voters (national body and several state/local chapters)
• National Council of Jewish Women
• Campaign Legal Center
• Other civic partners

They argue the ban does more than change logistics — it unlawfully restricts core political speech and association at a moment with deep civic meaning for immigrants who have just completed the naturalization process. Their complaint, summarized by Democracy Docket, claims the policy violates the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

“The new ban restricts core political speech and association at a moment that has deep civic meaning,” the complaint states.

Legal claims — overview

First Amendment

• Plaintiffs assert that nonpartisan civic groups have a right to speak with and assist eligible voters, including brand‑new citizens, about registering to vote.
• They contend the ban places an unconstitutional burden on political expression and civic outreach by preventing NGOs from offering help at the moment new citizens are easiest to reach.
• The complaint emphasizes that the affected drives were historically nonpartisan, open to all newly sworn‑in citizens, and focused on ensuring people could register if they chose.

Fifth Amendment

• The Fifth Amendment claims focus on equality and fairness.
• Plaintiffs say the policy discriminates against naturalized citizens by making it harder for them to register than for U.S.‑born citizens, who can often rely on:
  • school registration drives,
  • motor vehicle office registration,
  • systems they are already familiar with or available in their native language.
• The complaint argues that blocking trusted groups from helping at ceremonies denies new citizens equal protection and due process, especially those facing language barriers or confusion about local rules.

Administrative Procedure Act (APA)

• Plaintiffs argue the August 29 policy change was implemented “abruptly” without:
  • public notice,
  • chance for comment from affected organizations,
  • a clear explanation for why the longstanding practice ended.
• Under the APA, major public‑affecting policy changes generally require formal rulemaking; the groups contend that did not occur and seek relief on that basis.

Immediate, concrete impacts reported

Court filings and public statements describe swift, concrete disruptions:

• The League of Women Voters says it has cancelled at least 166 planned voter registration events that would have taken place at naturalization ceremonies nationwide.
• Those cancelled events are estimated to have helped about 10,000 new citizens begin the registration process.
• Other groups report similar disruptions: volunteer networks sidelined and long‑planned outreach scrapped with little warning.

In some jurisdictions, the fallout extended to the ceremonies themselves:

• Counties in New York and other states have postponed or cancelled ceremonies after the policy shift and lawsuit.
• This left hundreds of aspiring citizens in limbo — delaying access to:
  • the ballot box,
  • jobs,
  • travel,
  • rights tied to having a U.S. passport and full citizenship status.

Broader context: why ceremonies matter

Naturalized citizens are a growing part of the U.S. electorate. As of 2024:

• About one in ten eligible voters in the country is a naturalized citizen.
• Over the last decade, voter registration drives at naturalization ceremonies have played an important role in connecting new Americans to the electoral process.

Why these ceremonies are effective:
– They gather large groups of soon‑to‑be voters in one place.
– They provide a timely, trusted opportunity to register on a symbolic “first day” of citizenship.
– After the ceremony, new citizens often return to busy lives and may not find or trust alternative sources of help.

Barriers that make on‑site assistance crucial:
– Language differences
– Complex, state‑specific registration systems
– Uncertainty or fear about making mistakes on government forms

Groups like the League of Women Voters and the National Council of Jewish Women say they built volunteer operations over years to address those exact needs — providing multilingual help and plain‑language explanations.

Government response and resources

The federal government has offered limited public comment so far. USCIS has not released a detailed explanation for the August 29 directive beyond basic field office instructions.

• USCIS continues to host naturalization ceremonies and posts general information about the process on the USCIS naturalization ceremonies page.
• The specific question of outside voter registration assistance at ceremonies is now being litigated.

Intersection with immigration and voting rights debates

Observers note the case underscores a growing overlap between immigration policy and voting‑rights debates.

• According to VisaVerge.com, immigration agencies control the time, place, and conditions of naturalization — including the final oath.
• Voting‑rights groups view the oath ceremony as a rare chance to close registration gaps that can persist for years.
• The lawsuit forces courts to decide how to balance USCIS’s control over ceremonies with groups’ efforts to facilitate voter registration.

What the complaint seeks

Supported by materials from the League of Women Voters and the Campaign Legal Center, the complaint asks the court for:

• Immediate relief to stop enforcement of the ban.
• Restoration of the earlier policy allowing vetted, nonpartisan NGOs to assist at ceremonies when election officials are unavailable.

The plaintiffs warn that without swift relief, each new round of naturalization ceremonies will occur under rules that make it harder for new citizens to register on the spot.

Potential long‑term consequences

Civic groups warn that if the ban remains:

• It could lead to lower voter registration and participation among new Americans for years.
• Many new citizens, already facing language and informational barriers, may be pushed to the sidelines if one of the most convenient and trusted points of contact is removed.

As the litigation proceeds, courts will weigh both the technical legal claims and broader policy questions about USCIS’s role in civic life. For more than a decade, field offices were common settings for nonpartisan voter registration at the close of oath ceremonies. With that access now curtailed and subject to judicial review, the future of that model — and the ease with which new citizens can move from the oath into the voting booth — remains uncertain.