Judge accuses Trump DOJ of hiding its 'true motives'

President Donald Trump’s Justice Department is getting an earful from federal judges across the nation, with one accusing the administration of concealing its “true motives” as it tries to get its hand on voter data.

A ProPublica investigation published Friday documented showing how judges have rejected the department’s legal arguments in 26 lawsuits seeking states’ unredacted voter rolls, delivering an embarrassing series of defeats to Trump’s effort to obtain election records.

The DOJ’s Civil Rights Division has sued 30 states, including Washington, D.C., in an effort to get confidential information about millions of American voters in unredacted voter rolls since September last year.

A judge, appointed by President Bill Clinton, accused the Trump administration of trampling on Americans’ right to vote, writing:

“The foundation upon which American democracy has been built is the right to vote. … Now it seems the Executive Branch of the United States government wants to abridge the right of many Americans to cast their ballots. … The Court does not take lightly DOJ’s obfuscation of its true motives.”

Conservative judges also laid on the criticism with West Virginia, U.S. District Judge Thomas E. Johnston, a George W. Bush appointee, rejecting the government's demand, stating that: “Clearly, this demand is devoid of any factual basis.”

ProPublica found that the administration initially relied on Trump’s March 2025 executive order on election integrity to make its claim.

After courts rejected that approach, DOJ lawyers changed strategy by invoking a Civil Rights Act of 1960 provision designed to preserve election records and protect voters from discrimination.

But judges ruled that the provision did not give federal officials the authority over state-maintained voter rolls as the department claimed.

An Obama judge, Cathy Bissoon, said that public statements revealed the Trump administration's true intent to create a national voter database which could potentially be used in future elections as a "fishing expedition" to make unsubstantiated claims of non-citizens voting for immigration enforcement.

An Oregon judge, Mustafa T. Kasubhai, warned about the government’s credibility, writing that “The presumption of regularity ... no longer holds,” before questioning whether the department deserved the benefit of the doubt about its stated intentions.

He cited a letter from Attorney General Pam Bondi linking access to Minnesota voter records to demands about immigration enforcement.

According to ProPublica, all 26 judges dismissed the department’s lawsuits, four cases remain pending, and one state settled.

The administration has appealed most decisions, but the only appeal resolved so far upheld the dismissal of the Michigan case.

The Justice Department spokesperson denied that department attorneys committed any wrongdoing.

“Disagreement with the government’s position is not evidence of bad faith. We look forward to making our case on appeal,” the spokesperson said.