A federal judge in the United States ruled on November 2 that the federal government must cease the transmission of lists to states containing individuals identified or suspected to be non-citizens, but who are registered voters.
Judge Tanya Chutkan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a detailed 30-page opinion, indicating that the federal government’s extensive disclosure of these lists to the states likely violates the Privacy Act.
This legislation prohibits the government from disclosing personally identifiable information unless certain exceptions are met, such as when a head of a governmental agency requests data retrieval and the government is able to substantiate that such a request has been made.
Furthermore, the officials failed to issue a System of Records Notice (SORN), which is mandated by the Privacy Act when establishing new databases. Judge Chutkan stated in her ruling, “This constitutes a violation of the procedural requirements of the Privacy Act.”
She referenced the perspective of another court within the same jurisdiction, which asserted that if a governmental agency initiates a massive data-sharing program affecting the sensitive personal information of millions of Americans without issuing a notice explaining how the data will be utilized, it fundamentally contradicts both the letter and spirit of the Privacy Act.
In her ruling, the judge also found that there exists no legal authority for the federal government to collect registered voter lists and share these data with the states. Consequently, she has temporarily barred government officials from disclosing lists of voters possibly identified as non-citizens, along with related voter registration information, to any state or county.
At the time of reporting, the U.S. Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security had not responded to requests for comment submitted earlier that morning.
Coincidentally, on the same day the ruling was issued, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stated that the federal government could pressure states to segregate ballots suspected to have been cast by non-citizens, threatening that election officials might face criminal prosecution if they allowed non-citizens to vote.
However, shortly thereafter, the entire panel of judges in the Ninth Circuit quickly rescinded this order, indicating that the case would be reassessed by all judges.
Previously, federal officials had been sending these lists to states and counties, urging local governments to verify whether the individuals listed were U.S. citizens. Under the law, individuals identified as non-citizens cannot register as voters or participate in federal elections.
Lawyers from the U.S. Department of Justice had argued in a written statement submitted to Judge Chutkan that the government’s actions for identifying non-citizen voters were not the sort of final administrative decision that could be subject to judicial review; they contended that the groups suing over the government’s collection and transmission of voter data lacked standing because the government’s actions had not inflicted any tangible harm on these entities.
Additionally, the Justice Department argued that the initiative was partly authorized under immigration law. This law grants the federal government “broad and unquestionable powers” regarding immigration matters and the status of foreigners.
The government’s lawyers also posited that the Privacy Act allows only individuals, rather than organizations, to file lawsuits seeking judicial remedies.
However, Judge Chutkan disagreed with these assertions. She noted that the plaintiffs, including the League of Women Voters, were likely to prevail in their lawsuit. This assertion stems from the fact that the policy of transferring voter data has yielded legal repercussions, including litigation initiated by the federal government regarding how state officials should act upon receiving these lists, thereby qualifying as a final administrative action subject to judicial review.
She further stated that the League of Women Voters holds sufficient standing to file suit since this policy had adversely impacted the organization’s ability to assist individuals in registering to vote ahead of the midterm elections.
Moreover, the immigration law cited by the Justice Department does not authorize the transmission of these lists. Regarding the argument that only individuals could sue for violations of the Privacy Act, Judge Chutkan remarked that other courts have previously considered and rejected similar claims.