Story Highlights
- A senior DOJ attorney acknowledged in federal court that the citizenship list data is likely incomplete and unreliable for voter eligibility determinations, even as the administration simultaneously defends the executive order that mandates producing those lists.
- The case challenges a March 31, 2026 executive order directing the Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration to compile citizenship data and share it with states at least 60 days before each federal election.
- U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols — a Trump appointee — pressed the DOJ on why it would be lawful to disseminate lists the government itself acknowledges may be inaccurate.
What Happened
Stephen M. Pezzi, a senior Justice Department attorney, made the concession during a hearing before U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols in the Federal District Court in Washington. The admission was in the context of a lawsuit filed by Democratic and civil rights organizations challenging President Trump’s March 31, 2026 executive order, titled “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections.” The order requires the Department of Homeland Security, through the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, in conjunction with the Social Security Administration, to compile a list of confirmed U.S. citizens in each state and transmit it to state election officials no later than 60 days before each federal election.
Plaintiffs in the case argue that the executive order constitutes an unconstitutional overreach of presidential power into an area the Constitution reserves for Congress and the states. The president’s lawyers are seeking to have the lawsuit dismissed on the grounds that it is premature, arguing the lists do not yet exist and any challenge to their potential misuse is speculative. Pezzi described the plaintiffs’ claims as “shadowboxing” with a hypothetical harm, telling the court “it’s a little hard to address these questions in the abstract.”
The judge, however, appeared skeptical of that framing. Nichols asked Pezzi directly why it would be lawful for the federal government to disseminate citizenship lists to state election officials, prompting Pezzi to respond that it would be “the plaintiffs’ burden to explain why it’s unlawful.” The exchange illustrated the administration’s attempt to simultaneously defend the legality of distributing the lists while distancing itself from accountability for any harm that might result from their use by states to purge voter rolls.
The legal and technical problems with the citizenship list program are extensive and have been documented by nonpartisan researchers for months. The federal database the order relies upon most heavily — the SAVE system, or Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, operated by USCIS — was designed to verify immigration status for benefit programs, not to serve as a comprehensive national citizenship registry. Federal agencies acknowledged that a significant overhaul of SAVE began in May 2025 but that the work remains incomplete. Studies of states that have already used SAVE data to review voter rolls found that the system incorrectly flagged genuine U.S. citizens, including in cases where the government’s own data should have confirmed their citizenship status.
The administration’s position that the litigation is premature cuts in multiple directions. Critics and voting rights advocates argue that waiting for the lists to be produced and distributed before legal intervention would leave insufficient time to prevent harm ahead of the 2026 federal midterm elections, particularly given that the executive order requires the lists to be delivered at least 60 days before election day.
Why It Matters
The DOJ’s own admission about the reliability of the citizenship data it is ordering produced is highly significant for democratic governance. The administration’s stated purpose for the citizenship list program is to protect election integrity — specifically to ensure that non-citizens are not registered to vote in federal elections. If the foundational data for that program is, by the government’s own acknowledgment, likely to be incomplete and unreliable, then the program’s practical effect may be to produce errors that affect the voting rights of lawful U.S. citizens rather than to identify genuine violations.
The concern raised by voting rights researchers is concrete: a citizenship list that cannot definitively confirm the citizenship of all legal voters may be used by state officials — particularly in states where political leadership is inclined to reduce voter rolls aggressively — to challenge or remove registrations of legitimate voters. States that have already run voter rolls through the incomplete SAVE data have produced documented cases in which American citizens were wrongly flagged as potential non-citizens.
This episode also spotlights the broader constitutional controversy around presidential authority over election administration. The Constitution’s Elections Clause grants Congress and the states the power to regulate federal elections. Judge Nichols, himself a Trump appointee, appeared to question the administration’s legal reasoning during Thursday’s hearing, suggesting even sympathetic jurists may find the legal basis for the order difficult to sustain.
For American voters, the stakes extend beyond legal abstractions. The 2026 midterm elections will determine control of the House and Senate. Any program that produces unreliable voter eligibility determinations in a midterm election year carries direct implications for who is able to cast a ballot and whether the outcome of those elections reflects the full breadth of eligible American voters.
Economic and Global Context
The administration’s election integrity agenda has generated significant legal costs, with multiple lawsuits proceeding simultaneously in federal courts across the country. Trump’s first executive order on elections, issued upon returning to office last year, was largely blocked by federal judges before being replaced by the March 2026 order that is now itself in litigation. Each legal challenge requires resources from both the government and the plaintiff organizations, creating a prolonged institutional contest over the mechanics of American democracy.
The citizenship verification push also has implications for state election administrators, who would be required to receive and act on federal citizenship lists that their own experience with SAVE data suggests may be inaccurate. State election officials — including Republicans — have previously raised concerns about the feasibility and accuracy of federal voter eligibility verification systems. The costs of implementing, challenging, and managing the consequences of an unreliable list program fall disproportionately on state and local governments.
Internationally, the functioning of American elections is closely watched as a measure of democratic health. Prolonged litigation over election administration, combined with executive assertions of broad presidential power over voting, contributes to a global narrative about the stability of U.S. democratic institutions that affects how allies, adversaries, and international institutions assess American governance.
Implications
For the federal courts, Thursday’s hearing illustrated the complexity of adjudicating challenges to executive actions whose full impact depends on future government behavior. Judge Nichols did not rule from the bench, and a decision on the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction is pending. Given the current legal environment and the 2026 election timeline, a ruling is expected relatively soon.
For the Trump administration, the DOJ’s in-court concession about data reliability creates an awkward political dynamic. The administration has consistently framed the citizenship list program as a common-sense measure to protect the integrity of American elections, but a government attorney acknowledging that those lists may be incomplete and unreliable in open court significantly complicates that political message.
For state election officials, the court case’s outcome will determine whether they are legally required to receive and potentially act on federal citizenship lists of uncertain accuracy. Officials in Democratic-leaning states have been among the most vocal critics of the program; officials in Republican-led states will face pressure to use the lists aggressively once produced.
For voters and civic organizations, the litigation represents one of several active legal battles over the administration’s election agenda that will shape the procedural landscape of the 2026 midterms — elections that will determine the balance of power in Congress and set the political stage for 2028.
Sources
“Lawyers urge judge to block Trump order that would create eligible voter list, limit mail ballots”Â
