Become a Votebeat sponsor

Judge dismisses Department of Justice lawsuit seeking Pennsylvania voters’ private information

The department could now appeal the ruling, as it has in other states.

A sign on a building.
Department of Justice sign on the Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building in Washington, D.C. On Saturday, a federal judge dismissed the department's attempt to obtain sensitive voter information in Pennsylvania. (Getty Images)

What happened?

A federal district judge in Pennsylvania has dismissed a case brought by the U.S. Department of Justice seeking a copy of the state’s voter roll containing voters’ personal identifying information.

“Public statements from government officials reveal its intentions: to create a nationwide voter-database, for potential weaponization in future elections; as a “fishing expedition,” hoped to advance unsubstantiated claims of non-citizen voting; and as a tool for immigration enforcement,” Cathy Bissoon, district judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania, wrote in a decision Saturday.

The Justice Department has sued 30 states and the District of Columbia for access to state voter rolls containing personal information such as driver’s license and partial Social Security numbers.

What’s the dispute?

The department sued Pennsylvania in September. The Justice Department has said it is seeking the nonpublic information in order to ensure states are complying with federal voter registration laws. In December, the Pennsylvania Department of State urged the court to dismiss the case on the grounds that the laws the Justice Department was citing — the Help America Vote Act and National Voter Registration Act — don’t actually give them authority to demand the nonpublic versions of the voter rolls, and that the specific information the Justice Department sought was unnecessary to accomplish its objectives.

The Justice Department has submitted requests to every state. Seventeen Republican-led states, including Alaska and Texas, have voluntarily turned the unredacted rolls over. Other states, including Pennsylvania and Michigan, have opted to provide only the publicly available versions of the voter rolls, which do not contain driver’s license or partial Social Security numbers, citing privacy concerns and state laws barring such disclosure. So far, federal judges have ruled against the Justice Department in nine states, including Oregon, California, and Michigan.

What happens now?

Gov. Josh Shapiro touted the ruling on X, saying “no matter what the Trump Administration tries next, we’re going to stand up to protect Pennsylvanians’ right to privacy — and our fundamental right to vote.”

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling or whether it plans to appeal. The department has appealed similar rulings in some, but not all, other states. The first of those appeals, in Michigan, was recently decided, and agreed that the state did not have to share its data.

This story will be updated as more information becomes available.

Read more Votebeat coverage of the Justice Department’s request for voter rolls:

- U.S. Justice Department presses Pennsylvania for answers on how it manages voter rolls, July 9, 2025

- Why states should scrutinize the Justice Department’s requests for voter rolls, August 11, 2025

- U.S. sues Michigan, Pennsylvania and four other states over request for voter rolls, September 25, 2025

Carter Walker is a reporter for Votebeat in partnership with Spotlight PA. Contact Carter at cwalker@votebeat.org.

The Latest

Clerks blamed the short gap between primary and general election and delays at the printer.

The bill is unlikely to become law this legislative session, but its passage represents a key milestone for advocates.

Ballots are already in voters’ hands.

Recorder Justin Heap used SAVE, a federal tool known to produce false positives, to identify the potential noncitizen voters.

Voters will weigh in on dozens of races, including U.S. senator, governor, and many other offices.

South Dakota’s Republican secretary of state offers a rare state-level example of election skepticism colliding with actual administration.