DHS tells the court it reasonably decided to use the best data it had available for its law enforcement role
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 California
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.
“DHS reasonably decided to make use of the best data it had available”
Original text
Where this statement fits
Judge halts DHS voter-eligibility field interviews of likely citizens in nine states; DHS says it pursues noncitizens who vote
On October 21, 2026, U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín granted a preliminary injunction barring the Department of Homeland Security from election-related field operations and interviews in California, Connecticut, Georgia, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin that involve people agents know or should suspect are U.S. citizens. The order runs until polls close on November 3. National Nurses United and the California Nurses Association, which sued with San Francisco, Santa Clara County and Voto Latino Foundation, say the investigations intimidate voters. DHS says it is focused on removing noncitizens who vote and has no plans to question or investigate people it believes are citizens.
Source and context
Original text
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.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
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.
After the quotation
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.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
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.
- Recorded on
- Published here
- People and groups discussed
- National Nurses United
More from this case
Read the full caseProtect Democracy's Beau Tremitiere says DHS built its voter lists on bad data and recklessly sent agents to people's homes
Protect Democracy
“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”Read statement
National Nurses United's Puneet Maharaj says Trump cannot hold power without illegally suppressing the vote through harassment, intimidation and detention
National Nurses United
“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”Read statement
DHS says it is focused on removing noncitizens who vote and that only Americans should elect American leaders
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
“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”Read statement
Share or embed this statement
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the statement page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- DHS tells the court it reasonably decided to use the best data it had available for its law enforcement role
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/7318-in-its-brief-opposing-the-injunction-dhs-argues
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "DHS tells the court it reasonably decided to use the best data it had available for its law enforcement role". First published: 2026-10-30. Last updated: 2026-10-30. https://disputeindex.com/events/7318-in-its-brief-opposing-the-injunction-dhs-argues