As Election Day nears, these federal cases could still impact access to the ballot 

The Trump administration’s repeated attempts to exert control over this year’s midterm elections — a power the Constitution does not grant the president — have left the legal landscape for collecting and counting ballots in a state of near-constant flux. 

Many of the administration’s major suppression schemes — including the effort to change postal service rules to restrict mail voting and the sweeping campaign to obtain state voter data — have been blocked by courts. But plenty of other legal fights, over issues like law enforcement at the polls, a massive election monitoring program planned by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the administration’s attempt to create a national “citizenship list,” are still unresolved and could affect access to the ballot for some voters this fall.

Below, Democracy Docket has outlined the most important cases for you to be aware of. 

This list only covers federal lawsuits that affect the national landscape and could impact the midterms. None of the dozens, state or federal, that concern only one state’s rules have been included, though these too figure to play a major role in shaping access.  

As of Wednesday, Democracy Docket’s Research Team is tracking 204 active cases across jurisdictions, including 76 ongoing anti-voting lawsuits and 91 pro-voting matters. 

And this won’t be the final tally either. It doesn’t include the last-second challenges that will pop up in both federal and state courtrooms across the country as Election Day draws closer. But those lawsuits will mostly only involve the single race in question — for example, whether a recount should be ordered or the operating hours for a specific polling place extended — whereas the following cases could have broad national implications for electoral administration.

Trump Mail Voting Citizenship List Challenge

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) filed a lawsuit Aug. 31 challenging the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) implementation of President Donald Trump’s anti-mail voting executive order. Specifically, EPIC wants to block DHS from generating state citizenship lists using Americans’ sensitive personal information gathered from the Social Security Administration and Department of State. It also wants to prevent the agency from creating an online portal for state election officials to access that data before the midterms. 

If that plan is allowed to go forward, GOP-led states could use the DHS lists to embark on voter registration purges of suspected noncitizens despite the National Voter Registration Act’s (NVRA) ban on “systematically” removing registrations within 90 days of an election. The DHS lists would arguably provide individualized evidence supporting a removal — even though DHS’s voter roll data has been repeatedly proven unreliable. 

At a Sept. 25 hearing, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis sounded deeply skeptical of the scheme’s legality. Xinis ordered the DOJ attorneys arguing on behalf of DHS to “immediately” notify her if the agency planned to release either the citizenship lists or the internet portal.

Xinis could issue a ruling at any moment. It’s also likely that the President Barack Obama appointee would issue a preliminary injunction immediately upon receiving a notification from the DOJ. Even if that doesn’t happen, Xinis will probably issue a ruling before Election Day. 

Challenges to military and law enforcement at the polls

Denver ICE Agents at Polls Challenge

League of United Latin American Citizens, et al. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al.

Federal Election Interference at the Polls Challenge (NAACP)

NAACP, et al. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al.

Federal Election Interference at the Polls Challenge (DSCC)*

DSCC, et al. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al.

For months now, the Trump administration has flirted with the idea of ordering federal law enforcement agents or troops to polling places, a move that would violate federal law. Understandably, voting advocates and Democrats are concerned. But despite being offered numerous opportunities to backtrack, Trump and his lieutenants, including DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin, have refused to dispel the alarming idea. 

So in mid-September, various civil rights, voting rights and Democratic groups all sued, seeking legal assurances that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents or other federal law enforcement personnel wouldn’t intimidate voters at the polls. 

Given the overlapping facts and claims among these lawsuits, U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan ordered the parties to meet Oct. 16 to discuss consolidating the three cases into one. 

To date, none of the plaintiffs have filed for a temporary restraining order, making a definitive ruling before Nov. 3 unlikely. But that could quickly change if the administration begins to take steps toward deploying armed federal officers to polling sites. 

Relatedly, there are two ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits seeking records about just such a deployment. 

In Democratic National Committee v. U.S. Department of Justice, et al., the judge has ordered a joint status report for Oct. 16. As of Oct. 3, the two sides had tentatively agreed to a procedure in which the government would produce some of the roughly 24,000 pages of potentially responsive U.S. Customs and Border Protection records to determine whether any additional documents would need to be released. 

Meanwhile, in Democracy Forward Foundation v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security,* a joint status report is due Oct. 15. Despite heavy redactions, which Democracy Forward could end up challenging, the records produced so far have revealed the alarming size and scope of DHS’s efforts to interfere with elections.

Trump Administration Taxpayer Funded Political Ads Challenge

The Trump administration’s flagrantly illegal, taxpayer-funded campaign ads drew three immediate legal challenges. 

Last week, a judge ruled in one of them, granting the temporary restraining order (TRO) sought by a coalition of watchdog organizations and labor unions led by Common Cause. 

Despite the court order, the Trump administration appears to have continued running the campaign-style ads on TV and online, leading the judge to extend the TRO, which was originally scheduled to expire Oct. 25, after an emergency conference on Wednesday. 

A hearing is scheduled for Thursday in the lawsuit led by the Democratic National Committee challenging the advertisements.

Ongoing FOIAs

While no White House does a particularly admirable job of responding to FOIA requests, the second Trump administration still manages to underperform its predecessors. FOIA requests routinely go ignored in this administration, forcing watchdogs to file lawsuits to compel production of responsive records. Out of the hundreds of active FOIA lawsuits, here are some election-related cases that could produce noteworthy disclosures ahead of Election Day.

USCIS Records Request Challenge

Democracy Forward Foundation v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Democracy Forward** sued the Trump administration for records related to DHS’s Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system and its attempts to check the citizenship status of registered voters. The court has set an Oct. 28 deadline for producing records.

DOJ Election Monitors Records Challenge (NAACP)

NAACP v. Dhillon

After filing its FOIA complaint on Oct. 5, the NAACP sought a TRO to compel production of records related to Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon’s plans to deploy 1,000 federal election monitors to polling sites during the midterms. The DOJ filed its response opposing the motion on Tuesday, and the civil rights group now has until Thursday to reply. 

At this point, it seems unlikely that the judge would grant the TRO and order production before Election Day.

Federal Election Interference Records Challenge II (DNC)

Democratic National Committee v. U.S. Department of Justice

The DNC sued in mid-August, seeking records concerning any planned, anticipated or potential inspections or seizures of ballots, voting machines or other election equipment before the certification of the 2026 midterms. The parties are scheduled to file a joint status report Wednesday. 

That report should reveal whether the DOJ has been turning over relevant records or not.

Cases that could — but probably won’t — be decided by Election Day

Ninth Circuit DOJ Voter Data Access Challenge

United States v. Oregon and United States v. Weber

In its attempt to force states to hand over unredacted voter registration records, the DOJ has amassed an impressively awful 0-26 record in district court before a federal judge shut down the entire operation last week. 

The DOJ has yet to file an appeal to that ruling, which found that the department exceeded its statutory authority and violated federal law. 

Those developments all but erase any of the urgency the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals might have felt to issue a ruling in a case it has sat on for months now. 

After the DOJ appealed its losses in California and Oregon to the 9th Circuit, the court heard oral arguments in May. Since then, the DOJ has continued to rack up defeats, including one in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. 

So, while the 9th Circuit could rule any day now, it’s unlikely the judges there will hurry to publish a mostly moot decision. 

Federal Overseas Voting Form Challenge (DNC)

Democratic National Committee v. U.S. Department of Defense

Since filing this lawsuit on Oct. 1, the DNC hasn’t shown much urgency in litigating it. The lawsuit challenges the Trump administration’s recent decision to remove an option from the federal form allowing U.S. citizens born and living abroad to register to vote and request a mail ballot.

The DNC hasn’t asked for emergency injunctive relief to stop the changes, without which the lawsuit will progress at the measured pace typical of most civil litigation.  

*The Elias Law Group (ELG) represents plaintiffs in this case.

ELG Firm Chair Marc Elias is the founder of Democracy Docket.

**Democracy Forward represents the plaintiffs in this case. Democracy Docket Founder Marc Elias is the chair of Democracy Forward’s board.