Election lawsuits to watch one week before the midterm elections

Less than a week before polls close, courts are still weighing a growing array of election-related lawsuits over voter identification, citizenship checks, access to registration records, and the federal government’s authority to intervene in state election procedures.For some smaller cases already adjudicated, President Donald Trump’s Republican Party has been on the winning side. For instance, the Supreme Court in late October allowed New Hampshire to enforce restrictions on using student identification cards as valid voter IDs. Meanwhile, the Justice Department is fighting an uphill battle in California with its pursuit of additional citizenship checks for thousands of Golden State voters, as well as a separate fight over delaying certification of Alaska’s Senate race.The administration maintains that it is enforcing federal election laws and acting before potentially unlawful votes become part of the results. States, Democratic officials, and outside organizations challenging those efforts contend that some demands lack sufficient evidence or exceed federal authority. The litigation extends beyond the DOJ. The Republican National Committee’s general counsel Mike Hurst said in a NewsNation interview this week that the party has “over 200 lawsuits throughout the country,” describing the effort as fulfilling Trump’s promise to secure elections.Some disputes have already established which rules will govern November voting, even as the underlying cases continue. Others could produce decisions during ballot counting and certification that could have larger impacts on localized races.Here are the major cases and developments to watch.Alaska: DOJ seeks a conditional halt to Senate certification Case: United States v. State of Alaska, No. 3:26-cv-00376, U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska.Alaska and its election officials moved Oct. 26 to dismiss the DOJ’s lawsuit seeking a conditional delay in certification of the state’s Senate race.The case centers on two candidates: incumbent Sen. Dan S. Sullivan (R-AK) and Daniel J. Sullivan Jr., a retired teacher whose similar name DOJ argues could confuse voters.This combination photo shows Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK), left, in Palmer, Alaska, Aug. 17, 2026, and a candidate in Alaska’s Senate race, Dan Sullivan, right, in Petersburg, Alaska, July 3, 2026. (AP Photos/Mark Thiessen/Becky Bohrer) The DOJ’s Oct. 22 complaint asks U.S. District Judge Sharon Gleason, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, to prevent certification in the event the senator loses but the results show he would have won had votes for the other Sullivan instead gone to him under Alaska’s ranked choice voting process. In other words, the government wants the ability to investigate whether those voters intended to support the incumbent or the other Sullivan on the ballot.The state’s dismissal motion challenges DOJ’s standing and statutory authority. Alaska argues that the National Voter Registration Act governs registration practices and does not authorize federal intervention over similar candidate names, ballot design, or certification. DOJ relied on the law’s election integrity authority and its civil enforcement provision.Alaska also argues that its ballot distinguishes the candidates through their first names, middle initials, the challenger’s “Jr.” designation, party information, and the incumbent label beside the senator’s name. The state raises ballot secrecy objections to an investigation attempting to identify voters and determine whom they intended to support.The Division of Elections initially excluded Daniel J. Sullivan over concerns about voter confusion, but state courts ordered his inclusion. Attorney General Todd Blanche has maintained that the federal lawsuit raises a separate question.“The Alaska Supreme Court did not rule on the federal law that’s implicated in every election,” Blanche told CBS News on Sunday.Democratic challenger Mary Peltola’s campaign committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee have separately sought to intervene and obtain dismissal of the case before Election Day. They argue that leaving the case unresolved would allow it to hang like a “Sword of Damocles over the ongoing election.” Voter organizations and two individual voters have also sought intervention. Where things stand: Gleason granted expedited briefing on the intervention requests on Oct. 26, directing the DOJ to respond by 5 p.m. Oct. 27 and allowing replies by noon on Oct. 28. Alaska filed its own dismissal motion and request for expedited consideration later Monday. Those requests are distinct from a ruling dismissing the case.What to watch: Whether Gleason permits the additional parties to intervene, accelerates consideration of dismissal, and decides whether DOJ has a viable claim before Election Day.California: DOJ seeks to set aside ballots pending citizenship checks Case: United States v. State of California, No. 2:26-cv-12025, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Related appeal: No. 26-7070, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.A divided federal appeals court on Monday dismissed the DOJ’s emergency appeal on procedural grounds, but did not dismiss the case outright. The DOJ is seeking to force California to separate mail ballots associated with more than 20,000 people the department identified as likely noncitizens.The 2-1 decision leaves the underlying lawsuit before U.S. District Judge David Carter, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, who scheduled a Tuesday hearing on the DOJ’s request for a temporary restraining order. The panel concluded that Carter had not been given adequate time to consider the application and that his failure to rule on DOJ’s accelerated timetable did not give the appeals court jurisdiction.Bill Essayli, acting U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California, speaks with reporters during a news conference at the Department of Justice, Wednesday, Nov. 19, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein) “The United States’s claimed emergency, at least in part, is a self-constructed one,” the appeals court majority wrote.The DOJ argues that ballots from the flagged voters should be held until their citizenship can be verified, preventing potentially unlawful votes from becoming impossible to identify once separated from their envelopes. California and Los Angeles County dispute the list’s reliability and argue that federal law does not authorize DOJ to compel the requested changes to ballot processing.U.S. Circuit Judges Mark Bennett, a Trump appointee, and Gabriel Sanchez, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, formed the appeals court majority. U.S. Circuit Judge Patrick Bumatay, another Trump appointee, dissented.Bumatay would have granted relief, arguing that the federal prohibition on noncitizen voting overrides conflicting state procedures. Bennett separately questioned the DOJ’s likelihood of prevailing and warned that its proposed remedy lacked a workable implementation plan and risked disrupting the election.Where things stand: The appellate decision does not dismiss DOJ’s lawsuit or resolve whether the flagged voters are eligible. Carter’s Oct. 27 hearing is the next scheduled step in deciding whether California must change its ballot procedures.What to watch: Carter’s ruling on emergency relief and any renewed appeal or request for Supreme Court intervention.Democrats countersue after DOJ’s California lawsuit, federal demands, and prosecution warnings Case: DSCC v. Trump, No. 1:26-cv-03674, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.Democratic organizations and congressional leaders filed this case Oct. 20, days after the DOJ sued California, challenging federal demands that states review registration lists, withhold ballots, or segregate votes based on suspected noncitizenship.The plaintiffs include the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Democratic Governors Association, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY).House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), right, speaks as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), left, listens during a news conference, Thursday, May 21, 2026, on Capitol Hill, in Washington. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib) Their complaint also challenges warnings of prosecution directed at state election officials, arguing that the administration is using enforcement threats to compel actions that federal law does not authorize. The DOJ warned California that election officials could be criminally responsible if they knowingly count illegally-cast votes.The plaintiffs allege that those demands “force Plaintiffs and their candidate members to compete in elections conducted under unlawful federal coercion.” They assert constitutional claims and a claim under the Voting Rights Act’s prohibition on intimidation, according to their complaint.The administration disputes the premise that its enforcement efforts are unlawful. The DOJ told the Associated Press that election integrity is a priority and its actions are grounded in law and subject to court litigation.Where things stand: Chief Judge James Boasberg, an Obama appointee, held a scheduling hearing Oct. 26. He ordered the government to respond to the plaintiffs’ emergency request for expedited discovery by 2 p.m. Oct. 27, with the plaintiffs’ reply due at noon on Oct. 28. A hearing is scheduled for 2 p.m. on Oct. 29.What to watch: Whether Boasberg permits expedited discovery into federal officials’ actions and communications, and whether the plaintiffs subsequently obtain restrictions before Election Day. A discovery order would not itself resolve the underlying claims.Supreme Court allowed expanded federal citizenship checks ahead of midterm elections Case: Department of Homeland Security v. League of Women Voters, No. 26A308.The Trump administration won permission from the Supreme Court on Sept. 25 to use an expanded federal database to help state and local election officials check voters’ citizenship ahead of the November elections.The dispute concerns changes to the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements program, known as SAVE. The administration incorporated Social Security Administration records and enabled officials to check multiple individuals at once. Challengers argued that the changes violated federal privacy and information-sharing laws.The Supreme Court put a lower-court order blocking the modified system on hold while the government appeals. The majority of the justices concluded that the government was likely to prevail and that the injunction prevented it from assisting election officials with citizenship verification. Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan dissented.The ruling permits use of the system, but checking a voter’s citizenship and removing that voter from the rolls are separate steps. The majority acknowledged that federal law restricts systematic voter roll removals within 90 days of a federal election, while individualized citizenship inquiries remain permissible.Where things stand: The expanded SAVE system can operate under the September order while the appeal continues. The Supreme Court has not finally resolved the underlying legal challenge.What to watch: How election officials act on SAVE results before Nov. 3, including whether eligibility reviews lead to disputed removals or additional court challenges.Court constrains DHS voter investigations in nine states Case: California Nurses Association v. Mullin, No. 4:26-cv-10680, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.A separate lawsuit addresses how the Department of Homeland Security investigates suspected noncitizen voter registration.Nurses unions, Voto Latino Foundation, San Francisco, and Santa Clara County challenged investigative practices they said relied on inaccurate records and discouraged lawful election participation.The Trump administration defended its authority to investigate suspected election crimes and argued that the Voting Rights Act does not prohibit ordinary law enforcement merely because an investigation makes someone apprehensive about voting.U.S. District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin, a Biden appointee, granted a preliminary injunction on Oct. 21, finding the plaintiffs likely to succeed on their claim concerning intimidation affecting voter assistance.DHS maintained that its investigations targeted noncitizens. The judge concluded that inaccurate data still created a risk that citizens would be swept into the investigations.The order restricts specified election-related field operations involving people officials know, suspect, or reasonably should suspect are U.S. citizens. It applies in California, Connecticut, Georgia, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wisconsin through the close of voting Nov. 3.The judge distinguished the challenged practices from the government’s broader authority to investigate unlawful voting.Where things stand: The judge initially delayed the order’s effect until Oct. 23.What to watch: Any appellate challenge or order changing the injunction’s scope, and disputes over whether particular investigative practices fall within its restrictions.DOJ fights court setbacks over demands for state voter rolls Case: Common Cause v. U.S. Department of Justice, No. 1:26-cv-01352, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alongside DOJ’s separate lawsuits against states.The DOJ’s effort to obtain states’ complete voter registration files faces two related legal obstacles: rulings rejecting its demands against individual states and an Oct. 9 decision striking down the nationwide policy behind those demands.The DOJ argues that federal election laws authorize it to obtain the records to investigate whether states are maintaining accurate voter rolls. States resisting disclosure have challenged that authority and raised concerns about sensitive personal information. Many of those cases are now on appeal.Common Cause and individual voters brought a separate challenge to the DOJ’s broader policy of collecting registration files, checking them against citizenship records, and urging states to remove voters the department identifies as ineligible.U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan, a Biden appointee, struck down that policy on Oct. 9, finding that it exceeded the DOJ’s statutory authority and violated federal privacy and information collection requirements.Where things stand: The DOJ is appealing the broader ruling and has asked to suspend it during the appeal. That fight proceeds alongside its appeals seeking access to individual states’ records.Federal monitors and other election enforcement Alongside the deluge of litigation happening across the country, the DOJ is preparing an expanded election-monitoring operation. Top DOJ officials have said the department plans to deploy approximately 1,000 monitors for the midterm elections.The department describes monitoring as a way to assess compliance with federal voting-rights laws, and it has used such monitors consistently across different administrations. DOJ attorney monitors and court-authorized federal observers operate under different sources of authority, which can affect their access to polling places.Rules vary by jurisdiction. Two Minnesota counties invoked state law to keep DOJ monitors outside a 100-foot boundary during the August primary, according to Reuters.Federal monitors remain subject to restrictions on partisan activity and using their positions to affect election results. Their deployment does not give them general authority to direct state election administration.APPEALS COURT REJECTS DOJ’S EXPEDITED BID TO SET ASIDE 20,000 CALIFORNIA MAIL BALLOTSThe administration’s election enforcement effort had produced 160 arrests nationwide by September, Homeland Security Investigations official Matthew Millhollin said Sept. 22. DOJ said those arrests stemmed from voter fraud investigations, including cases involving alleged false citizenship claims and false statements.Enforcement continued in October. DOJ announced charges against 28 foreign nationals in California on Oct. 19, reporting that 11 had been arrested that day. Those defendants were also factored into a Monday announcement covering charges against 48 people across five states.