The Justice Department has asked a federal judge to consider contempt charges against an immigrant rights group and its legal team for publishing an analysis of a government list of suspected noncitizen voters in California. The department argues that the group’s release of data contradicting the accuracy of the list violated a court order restricting how the information could be used.
U.S. District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg granted the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA) access to federal data on approximately 20,000 individuals the Trump administration alleges are noncitizens registered to vote in California. The order stipulated that plaintiffs could use the data solely to demonstrate legal standing to challenge the administration's use of the list and prohibited them from disclosing specific names.
What the Left Is Saying
Attorneys for CHIRLA and the UCLA Voting Rights Project stated that their analysis revealed significant discrepancies in the Justice Department’s list. In court filings, they noted that more than 40% of the individuals named do not appear in California’s official voter file. The analysis also identified 22 people who were likely naturalized U.S. citizens and suggested that thousands of other U.S. citizens were incorrectly included.
Alberto Lammers, a spokesman for the UCLA Voting Rights Project, which filed the case and conducted the data analysis, said in a statement that plaintiffs' counsel and their experts "fully complied with the Court's orders." The group argues that exposing the inaccuracies is essential to demonstrating why the government’s reliance on the list for enforcement actions is legally flawed.
California election officials have contended that the list is riddled with errors. They stated that they lack the capacity to perform the extensive verification required by law to remove voters from the rolls in the immediate days leading up to an election. Officials emphasize that voters attest to their citizenship upon registration and face felony prosecution if they cast ballots while ineligible.
What the Right Is Saying
The Justice Department defended the accuracy of its list, describing it as carefully compiled from California’s own voter registration data and cross-referenced with federal citizenship records. In a filing on Sunday, the department characterized the group’s analysis as "political grandstanding" that had no relevance to the question of whether the specific plaintiffs in the case had legal standing.
The department’s filing argued that the comparisons between the government’s list and the full California voter file were outside the scope of the court’s permission. Consequently, the Justice Department suggested that Judge Boasberg refer the matter to the department for investigation into possible criminal contempt of court for violating the order to keep the data confidential.
Separately, the Justice Department appealed a ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Trina L. Thompson, who barred the department from demanding that election offices remove possible noncitizens from voter rolls, separate their ballots, or threaten legal action. The Justice Department noted that Thompson ruled before the federal government could present its initial arguments.
What the Numbers Show
The Justice Department identified more than 20,000 suspected noncitizens registered to vote in California. An analysis by the plaintiffs found that more than 40% of these names did not appear in the state's voter file. Additionally, 22 individuals on the list were identified as likely naturalized U.S. citizens, with indications that thousands more U.S. citizens were included.
This legal dispute is part of a broader series of challenges by the Trump administration regarding alleged noncitizen voting. A federal judge in California previously rejected the administration’s demand to force election officials to separate ballots cast by suspected noncitizens, with two appellate judges agreeing that such last-minute orders could "wreak havoc" on the state's election process.
The Justice Department has issued subpoenas for election offices in California and warned officials who knowingly permit noncitizens to vote that they could face criminal charges. The administration maintains that its list was derived from state data and federal records, while critics point to the high rate of mismatches found in independent analyses.
The Bottom Line
The conflict centers on the intersection of election integrity enforcement and procedural compliance in federal court. The Justice Department’s push for sanctions signals a strategic effort to control the narrative around its voter roll audits, while the plaintiffs argue that transparency about the list’s accuracy is fundamental to their legal challenge.
Judge Boasberg’s decision on the contempt motion will likely influence how future data-sharing orders are enforced in election-related litigation. Meanwhile, Judge Thompson has scheduled a hearing for Monday to address the Justice Department’s appeal of her ruling limiting its authority to remove voters or separate ballots.
Election officials in California continue to manage the immediate logistical challenges of the upcoming election, asserting that the statutory requirements for verifying citizenship and removing voters cannot be met within the current timeframe without disrupting the voting process.