Trump DOJ bid to defend Ohio’s anti-voting law is useless and untimely, court rules

A federal judge Tuesday rejected the Trump Justice Department’s attempt to defend Ohio’s restrictive new voting law, finding its proposed filing redundant, disconnected and too late to help the court ahead of a major hearing next week.

U.S. District Judge Solomon Oliver Jr. denied the DOJ’s request to file a statement of interest — a type of filing that lets the federal government weigh in on legal issues in cases where it is not a party — in a lawsuit challenging House Bill 54 (HB 54). The Ohio law requires voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote at the Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV).

It is exceedingly rare for a judge to reject a statement of interest from the DOJ. Courts typically show deference to the DOJ’s interest in virtually any case.

Oliver also denied a proposed “friend of the court” brief from the America First Policy Institute , a pro-Trump conservative group that sought to support Ohio officials defending the law.

Last year, civil organizations Red Wine & Blue and the Ohio Alliance for Retired Americans filed suit against Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose (R) and Ohio Registrar of Motor Vehicles Charles Norman over the law.

The pro-voting plaintiffs* argue that HB 54 violates the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) by forcing eligible voters to provide more information than is necessary to confirm their eligibility to vote.

Nearly 30% of Ohio voters register through the BMV, making the case especially consequential for voting access in the state. Voting rights advocates have warned the law could block eligible Ohioans who may not have proof of citizenship documents — such as a passport or birth certificate — readily available when they register to vote.

The Trump DOJ asked the court on Thursday to let it defend Ohio’s law, arguing that the proof-of-citizenship requirement does not conflict with the NVRA. But Oliver held that the DOJ’s proposed filing did not add much to the arguments already before the court.

“The filings largely reiterate the arguments already presented by the Defendants and the previously accepted amicus briefs,” Oliver found.

Courts often allow the DOJ to file statements of interest, even in cases where the department is not formally involved. Here, however, the court found that the Trump DOJ’s proposed contribution added nothing to the conversation, as its arguments largely repeated what Ohio officials had already said.

Oliver was even more pointed when addressing DOJ’s attempt to discuss Ohio’s authority over driver’s licenses and identification cards, calling out the DOJ for arguing against claims the plaintiffs didn’t even make.

“Plaintiffs do not challenge Ohio’s driver’s license and state identification laws,” Oliver wrote. “Rather, they take issue with Ohio’s motor voter law and whether as amended by HB 54, it violates section five of the NVRA.”

The court held that the DOJ’s discussion of those issues was “disconnected from the claims Plaintiffs assert” and thus “of limited utility to the court.”

In other words, the court did not just reject the DOJ’s position; it also found that the department’s filing would not meaningfully help resolve the actual voting rights dispute before it.

The court also held that the DOJ’s request came too late.

The motions from the DOJ and the America First Policy Institute were filed on June 11, the same day the court’s expedited briefing schedule ended, and the plaintiffs had already filed their reply in support of their request to block the law. Had the court accepted the DOJ’s motion, the plaintiffs would have had no time to reply.

While the court had previously allowed amicus briefs from groups like the Republican National Committee and Honest Elections Project, Oliver said those filings came earlier, when there were still about three weeks before the preliminary injunction hearing and before the plaintiffs had filed their reply.

Not so for the DOJ.

“As such, the court does not find the Motions timely,” Oliver wrote.

The ruling is a significant setback for the DOJ, which sought to use the case to support a Republican-backed law that voting advocates say will make it harder for eligible citizens to register. 

It comes just days before oral argument on the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, which asks the court to block enforcement of the proof-of-citizenship requirement while the case continues.

Oral arguments are scheduled for June 25.

*The plaintiffs in this case are represented by the Elias Law Group (ELG). ELG firm chair Marc Elias is the founder of Democracy Docket.