Judge bars DHS election-related field interviews involving suspected U.S. citizens in nine states through Election Day

As of Thursday afternoon, Oct. 22, 2026, the court docket as mirrored on CourtListener showed no notice of appeal from the federal government, a day after U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín of the Northern District of California issued a preliminary injunction against parts of the Department of Homeland Security’s effort to find noncitizens who registered or voted.¹ Her order, signed Wednesday, Oct. 21, is stayed until 5 p.m. Friday, Oct. 23.² The Associated Press reported that the delay gives the administration time to appeal.³

What the order bars

The order covers California, Connecticut, Georgia, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin. In those states, the defendant agencies and officials, and others acting in concert with them, may not conduct elections-related field operations or field interviews that involve, or are likely to involve, people the agencies know, suspect, or should reasonably know or suspect are U.S. citizens. They also may not run such field operations against those people based only on TECS records produced by what the plaintiffs call the Voter Eligibility Matching Policy. The order lasts until 8 p.m. Nov. 3, 2026, or until polls close on Election Day, unless the court directs otherwise. Plaintiffs had to post a $100 bond by 5 p.m. Thursday or the order would be dissolved.²

The judge wrote that the plaintiffs did not claim, and she did not find, that federal investigations into illegal voting in federal elections are unlawful.²

The court’s findings

According to the order, DHS launched an “Unlawful Voter Initiative” in August, and an Aug. 31 “Surge Initiative Guidance” directed Homeland Security Investigations agents to prioritize field investigations on voter eligibility in the nine states. The judge described the initial target-list data as “voluminous and unreliable,” including 48.2 million records DHS obtained from independent sources and 50.6 million records from the Justice Department. During the surge, she wrote, agents had to complete at least 40 reviews and take no more than 12 minutes to clear a person from the list.²

The judge found that only the California Nurses Association and National Nurses United showed standing, and only on a Voting Rights Act Section 11(b) claim that the program intimidates people who urge or help others to vote. She found that San Francisco, Santa Clara County and the Voto Latino Foundation had not shown standing at this stage, and she did not reach the plaintiffs’ Administrative Procedure Act or constitutional claims.²

The two sides

In their Sept. 28 opposition, government lawyers wrote that the challenged actions are a USCIS information-sharing agreement and weekly email guidance telling some HSI offices to temporarily prioritize these cases, “subject to a rigorous set of filters to ensure that U.S. citizens will not be subject to investigations or enforcement action.” They argued that “enjoining the government from even investigating such criminal violations would damage the public interest.”⁴ In a statement Thursday, DHS said it has “no plans to question or investigate people we believe to be U.S. citizens,” CBS News reported.⁵

The plaintiffs’ Sept. 21 motion said DHS was building target lists “that the agency knows include U.S. citizens, especially naturalized citizens,” and sending armed agents to question people about voter eligibility at their homes and during vehicle stops.⁶ Beau Tremitiere, a Protect Democracy lawyer for the plaintiffs, said DHS “built its lists on bad data,” the AP reported.³

What the records do not show

• Whether the government has filed an appeal or a stay request, in the district court or the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, that had not yet appeared on CourtListener’s copy of the docket.¹
• How many people DHS has interviewed or how many U.S. citizens, if any, its lists flagged; the order cites sealed and partly redacted material the public cannot review.²
• Whether the plaintiffs posted the $100 bond by the Thursday deadline.²¹
• The court has not ruled on the final merits of the case.²