Judge halts DHS voter-eligibility field interviews of likely citizens in nine states; DHS says it pursues noncitizens who vote
A federal judge in Oakland barred DHS from election-related field interviews of likely U.S. citizens in nine states until polls close November 3. The nurses unions call the probes intimidation. DHS says it has no plans to question people it believes are citizens.
Case period:
Published by The Dispute Index editorial teamPublished Updated
Overview
The judge found that the two nurses unions are likely to succeed on their claim that DHS's field investigations violate Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act by intimidating people who help or encourage others to vote. She found that the unions had not shown standing for their other voting claims or, at this stage, a final agency action for their Administrative Procedure Act claims. She also found that the two local governments and Voto Latino Foundation had not shown standing.
The order describes the initial target lists as "voluminous and unreliable." It says they drew on 48.2 million records DHS received from independent sources and 50.6 million records from the Justice Department, including commercial voter files for states that would not share their rolls. During the nine-state push that DHS called the Surge, the order says, agents were told to complete at least 40 reviews and to take no more than 12 minutes to clear a person from a list.
In its September 28 brief, the government argued that the plaintiffs lack standing, that the guidance they challenge is not final agency action, and that DHS reasonably used the best data available to it. Fox News Digital reported that government lawyers conceded some U.S. citizens may have been reviewed, but said in-person interviews were designed to resolve those discrepancies. After the ruling, a DHS spokesperson said the department has no plans to question or investigate people it believes are citizens.
The order does not bar all DHS investigations of suspected illegal voting. It covers field work involving likely citizens, and field operations against likely citizens that rest only on records from DHS's voter-matching process. The judge stayed it until 5 p.m. on October 23 so the government could seek review.
Read the full background
Federal law bars noncitizens from voting in federal elections, and the government says DHS has authority to investigate violations. According to the order, DHS's general counsel told Immigration and Customs Enforcement in June 2026 to pursue stricter penalties, including deportation, against noncitizens believed to have registered or voted improperly. In August, DHS began what it calls the Unlawful Voter Initiative, under which U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services compiles target lists and Homeland Security Investigations agents interview the people on them.
On August 31, DHS issued guidance directing agents to prioritize such field investigations in the nine states. On September 14, Senators Chuck Schumer and Alex Padilla released a whistleblower disclosure describing DHS training and data sources for the program. The unions, the two local governments and Voto Latino Foundation sued on September 18, and the court heard the motion on October 19.
Timeline
6 timeline entries on this page. Dates: August 31, 2026 to October 22, 2026
August 2026
DHS issues nine-state guidance for voter-eligibility field investigations
According to the court's order, DHS issues internal guidance directing Homeland Security Investigations agents to prioritize field investigations questioning people about their voter eligibility in California, Connecticut, Georgia, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin.
[01]California Nurses Association v. Mullin, No. 4:26-cv-10680-AMO (N.D. Cal.): order granting preliminary injunction
Order dated October 21, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. It grants the nurses unions a preliminary injunction barring DHS from election-related field operations and interviews in nine states that involve people agents know or should suspect are U.S. citizens, through the close of polls on November 3. The order was stayed until 5 p.m. on October 23.
September 2026
Schumer and Padilla release a whistleblower disclosure on the program
Source release
Senators Chuck Schumer and Alex Padilla release a whistleblower disclosure that, according to the order, details DHS trainings and the data sources used for the Unlawful Voter Initiative.
[01]California Nurses Association v. Mullin, No. 4:26-cv-10680-AMO (N.D. Cal.): order granting preliminary injunction
Order dated October 21, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. It grants the nurses unions a preliminary injunction barring DHS from election-related field operations and interviews in nine states that involve people agents know or should suspect are U.S. citizens, through the close of polls on November 3. The order was stayed until 5 p.m. on October 23.
Nurses unions, San Francisco, Santa Clara County and Voto Latino Foundation sue DHS
Claim
The California Nurses Association, National Nurses United, the City and County of San Francisco, the County of Santa Clara and Voto Latino Foundation sue DHS and its leaders in the Northern District of California, alleging that the voter-eligibility investigations intimidate voters and people who help others vote.
[02]California Nurses Association v. Mullin, No. 4:26-cv-10680-AMO (N.D. Cal.): complaint
Complaint filed September 18, 2026, challenging DHS's Unlawful Voter Initiative. The plaintiffs allege that DHS built lists of naturalized citizens to investigate by matching its records against state voter files, and that armed field interviews intimidate voters and people who help others vote.
[01]California Nurses Association v. Mullin, No. 4:26-cv-10680-AMO (N.D. Cal.): order granting preliminary injunction
Order dated October 21, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. It grants the nurses unions a preliminary injunction barring DHS from election-related field operations and interviews in nine states that involve people agents know or should suspect are U.S. citizens, through the close of polls on November 3. The order was stayed until 5 p.m. on October 23.
The federal defendants oppose the injunction request
Claim
The government argues that the plaintiffs lack standing, that the guidance they challenge is not final agency action, and that DHS reasonably used the best data available to it.
[03]California Nurses Association v. Mullin, No. 4:26-cv-10680-AMO (N.D. Cal.): defendants' opposition to motion for APA stay and preliminary injunction
Brief filed September 28, 2026, by the federal defendants, including DHS and Secretary Markwayne Mullin. It argues that the plaintiffs lack standing, that the challenged guidance is not final agency action, and that DHS reasonably used the best data available to it to investigate potential noncitizen voting.
October 2026
Judge grants a preliminary injunction to the nurses unions
Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín bars DHS from election-related field operations and interviews in the nine states that involve people agents know or should suspect are U.S. citizens, through the close of polls on November 3. She stays the order until 5 p.m. on October 23.
[01]California Nurses Association v. Mullin, No. 4:26-cv-10680-AMO (N.D. Cal.): order granting preliminary injunction
Order dated October 21, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. It grants the nurses unions a preliminary injunction barring DHS from election-related field operations and interviews in nine states that involve people agents know or should suspect are U.S. citizens, through the close of polls on November 3. The order was stayed until 5 p.m. on October 23.
[04]Fox News
Fox News Digital report on the October 21 injunction. It quotes the order and a DHS spokesperson's statement to Fox News Digital, and reports that government lawyers conceded some U.S. citizens may have been reviewed.
[05]The Guardian
Guardian report on the injunction. It quotes the order, a DHS email statement and a statement from Beau Tremitiere, a lawyer for the unions and Voto Latino Foundation.
DHS and the plaintiffs respond to the ruling
Reaction
A DHS spokesperson says the department is focused on removing noncitizens who vote and has no plans to question people it believes are citizens. National Nurses United and a lawyer for the plaintiffs say the order stops intimidation of voters.
[04]Fox News
Fox News Digital report on the October 21 injunction. It quotes the order and a DHS spokesperson's statement to Fox News Digital, and reports that government lawyers conceded some U.S. citizens may have been reviewed.
[05]The Guardian
Guardian report on the injunction. It quotes the order, a DHS email statement and a statement from Beau Tremitiere, a lawyer for the unions and Voto Latino Foundation.
[06]National Nurses United
National Nurses United press release of October 22, 2026, on the preliminary injunction. It quotes executive director Puneet Maharaj and lists Protect Democracy and the National Immigration Law Center among the groups that worked on the suit.
[07]Protect Democracy
Protect Democracy statement of October 22, 2026, on the preliminary injunction. It summarizes the order, quotes counsel Beau Tremitiere, and says Protect Democracy and the National Immigration Law Center represent the nurses unions and Voto Latino Foundation.
Court limits DHS's armed home visits questioning voter eligibility · Protect Democracy
Response record
Responses
Choose one response filter, or select All responses to see the full record.
4 responses. Newest first.
U.S. Department of Homeland SecurityDHS spokesperson, in a statement to Fox News DigitalDirectly involvedBefore this statement
In its October 22 report on the injunction, Fox News Digital says the administration maintains that noncitizen voting in federal elections is a crime and that DHS has statutory authority to investigate suspected violations.
"DHS is laser focused on identifying, prosecuting, and removing aliens who vote and dilute the votes of U.S. citizens. ONLY Americans should elect American leaders"
Defended or excusedCase context: Judge halts DHS voter-eligibility field interviews of likely citizens in nine states; DHS says it pursues noncitizens who vote
Full statement and sources
Responding to the injunction, a DHS spokesperson says the department is focused on identifying, prosecuting and removing noncitizens who vote and dilute the votes of U.S. citizens, and that only Americans should elect American leaders.
After the statement
The spokesperson added: "We have no plans to question or investigate people we believe to be U.S. citizens."
Why this label?
Relative to DHS's election-related field investigations in the nine states, the spokesperson defends the effort as one aimed at noncitizens who vote.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
National Nurses UnitedPuneet Maharaj, executive director of National Nurses United and the California Nurses Association, in an NNU press releaseDirectly involved Before this statement
National Nurses United issued this statement on October 22, the day after the injunction. The release says the order stops the Trump administration in nine states from using DHS to harass and intimidate voters by having armed agents go door to door to question their eligibility to vote, and that some union nurses changed their voting plans because they felt targeted.
"So many people in the United States are suffering under Trump’s corrupt and cruel policies on behalf of the billionaire class that he knows cannot hold onto power in these upcoming elections without illegally suppressing our vote through outright harassment, intimidation, and even detention"
CondemnedCase context: Judge halts DHS voter-eligibility field interviews of likely citizens in nine states; DHS says it pursues noncitizens who vote
Full statement and sources
In the union's statement on the injunction, executive director Puneet Maharaj says many people are suffering under what he calls Trump's corrupt and cruel policies on behalf of the billionaire class, and that Trump knows he cannot hold onto power in the coming elections without illegally suppressing the vote through harassment, intimidation and even detention.
After the statement
Maharaj adds that nurses fight for their patients and for a healthy democracy, and that each person's right to a voice and a vote follows from respect for human dignity. The release lists Protect Democracy and the National Immigration Law Center among the groups that worked on the suit.
Why this label?
Relative to DHS's election-related field investigations in the nine states, the union's statement treats the program as part of an effort to suppress votes through harassment and intimidation, and welcomes the order that blocks it.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Protect DemocracyBeau Tremitiere, counsel at Protect Democracy, which represents the nurses unions and Voto Latino Foundation, in a Protect Democracy statementBefore this statement
Protect Democracy published this statement on October 22, after the October 21 injunction. Just before this passage, Tremitiere says the courts affirmed that voting is a fundamental right that citizens, whether born in the United States or naturalized, should be able to exercise without armed government agents harassing them.
"It was clear from the start that DHS built its lists on bad data, never checked how often it was wrong, and recklessly sent agents to people’s homes weeks before an election"
CondemnedCase context: Judge halts DHS voter-eligibility field interviews of likely citizens in nine states; DHS says it pursues noncitizens who vote
Full statement and sources
Beau Tremitiere, counsel at Protect Democracy, says it was clear from the start that DHS built its lists on bad data, never checked how often they were wrong, and recklessly sent agents to people's homes weeks before an election.
After the statement
He adds that the ruling should remind people that American citizens hold the ultimate power in a democracy, not the government, "no matter what the administration says otherwise." The Guardian also reported the statement, describing Tremitiere as a lawyer representing the unions and voter group.
Court limits DHS's armed home visits questioning voter eligibility · Protect DemocracyWhy this label?
Relative to DHS's election-related field investigations in the nine states, Tremitiere criticizes the data behind the target lists and the decision to send agents to homes before the election.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
- U.S. Department of Homeland SecurityDefendant in the lawsuit, in a brief filed by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of CaliforniaDirectly involved
Before this statement
The federal defendants filed this brief on September 28, 2026, opposing the plaintiffs' motion for a stay and preliminary injunction. Just before this passage, the introduction argues that the plaintiffs lack standing, that the challenged guidance is not final agency action, and that decisions about which leads to pursue are committed to agency discretion. It then says that, if reviewable, the actions are not arbitrary and capricious.
"DHS reasonably decided to make use of the best data it had available"
Defended or excusedCase context: Judge halts DHS voter-eligibility field interviews of likely citizens in nine states; DHS says it pursues noncitizens who vote
Full statement and sources
In its brief opposing the injunction, DHS argues that it reasonably decided to use the best data it had available, and that its actions were therefore not arbitrary and capricious.
After the statement
The sentence continues that DHS used the data to perform its law enforcement role, even though the information may not be perfect in all cases. The introduction goes on to say the plaintiffs cannot bring freestanding claims outside the Administrative Procedure Act and have not shown that investigations alone would violate the Voting Rights Act or the Constitution.
Why this label?
Relative to DHS's election-related field investigations in the nine states, the brief defends the department's use of its data to choose people for investigation and argues that the actions are not arbitrary or capricious.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Sources
(7)
Original text
California Nurses Association v. Mullin, No. 4:26-cv-10680-AMO (N.D. Cal.): order granting preliminary injunction
Relevant passage: ECF No. 87
About this source
Order dated October 21, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. It grants the nurses unions a preliminary injunction barring DHS from election-related field operations and interviews in nine states that involve people agents know or should suspect are U.S. citizens, through the close of polls on November 3. The order was stayed until 5 p.m. on October 23.
- Author
- U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
Court limits DHS's armed home visits questioning voter eligibility
About this source
Protect Democracy statement of October 22, 2026, on the preliminary injunction. It summarizes the order, quotes counsel Beau Tremitiere, and says Protect Democracy and the National Immigration Law Center represent the nurses unions and Voto Latino Foundation.
- Author
- Protect Democracy
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
Union nurses, municipalities, and voter democracy groups successfully block Trump's fascist Department of Homeland Security from harassing and intimidating voters in nine states
About this source
National Nurses United press release of October 22, 2026, on the preliminary injunction. It quotes executive director Puneet Maharaj and lists Protect Democracy and the National Immigration Law Center among the groups that worked on the suit.
- Author
- National Nurses United
- Published
- Accessed
Reporting
US judge orders Trump administration to halt noncitizen voting investigation
About this source
Guardian report on the injunction. It quotes the order, a DHS email statement and a statement from Beau Tremitiere, a lawyer for the unions and Voto Latino Foundation.
- Author
- Guardian staff reporter
- Published
- Accessed
Reporting
Biden-appointed judge blocks voter-fraud probes in battleground states just days before midterms
About this source
Fox News Digital report on the October 21 injunction. It quotes the order and a DHS spokesperson's statement to Fox News Digital, and reports that government lawyers conceded some U.S. citizens may have been reviewed.
- Author
- Robert Schmad
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
California Nurses Association v. Mullin, No. 4:26-cv-10680-AMO (N.D. Cal.): complaint
Relevant passage: ECF No. 1
About this source
Complaint filed September 18, 2026, challenging DHS's Unlawful Voter Initiative. The plaintiffs allege that DHS built lists of naturalized citizens to investigate by matching its records against state voter files, and that armed field interviews intimidate voters and people who help others vote.
- Author
- California Nurses Association, National Nurses United, City and County of San Francisco, County of Santa Clara and Voto Latino Foundation
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
California Nurses Association v. Mullin, No. 4:26-cv-10680-AMO (N.D. Cal.): defendants' opposition to motion for APA stay and preliminary injunction
Relevant passage: ECF No. 46
About this source
Brief filed September 28, 2026, by the federal defendants, including DHS and Secretary Markwayne Mullin. It argues that the plaintiffs lack standing, that the challenged guidance is not final agency action, and that DHS reasonably used the best data available to it to investigate potential noncitizen voting.
- Author
- U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California, for the defendants
- Published
- Accessed
Share or embed this case
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the case page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Judge halts DHS voter-eligibility field interviews of likely citizens in nine states; DHS says it pursues noncitizens who vote
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/cases/dhs-voter-eligibility-field-interviews-injunction
The Dispute Index. "Judge halts DHS voter-eligibility field interviews of likely citizens in nine states; DHS says it pursues noncitizens who vote". First published: 2026-10-30. Last updated: 2026-10-30. https://disputeindex.com/cases/dhs-voter-eligibility-field-interviews-injunction