A D.C. Circuit judge ruled against the premise of the DOJ's order to obtain unredacted voter rolls earlier this month.
Posted by The Fox News Rundown, Checked
- Sources
- 4 contradict1 support2 context
- Said
- 1 time·
- Confidence
- 60%
The Fox News RundownOct 23, 2026
The core assertion holds: on October 9, 2026, a D.C. federal judge (Sparkle Sooknanan) ruled DOJ's voter-roll policy unlawful and vacated it, which is earlier in the same month as the October 23 post. However, the ruling came from the U.S. District Court for D.C., not the D.C. Circuit, so the claim's court identification is contradicted by the sources.
What was said
… In an effort to obtain unredacted voter rolls to ensure voter eligibility. While many Republican-led states complied with the request, Democratic-led states did not, and most federal judges have found in their favor. Earlier this month, a D.C. Circuit judge ruled against the entire premise of the initial order, ruling that even states that complied should not have. As for this latest countersuit filed by Democrats, are they likely to succeed? We know when it comes to how elections are conducted, the Constitution gives enormous power to Fox News Sunday anchor Shannon Bream, is also the host of the Live in the Bream …
The Fox News Rundown · · from the transcriptPost →What we found
Contradicts. Sources consistently identify the judge as a U.S. District Judge, and the ruling was issued by the District Court for D.C. Describing it as a D.C. Circuit judge's ruling misidentifies the court; the Circuit would only be involved on appeal, and sources say the ruling can be appealed to the D.C. Circuit.[1][2][3][4]
Supports. Reuters and the Washington Post report that a federal judge in Washington, Sparkle Sooknanan, ruled on Friday, October 9, 2026, that DOJ's push to obtain state voter rolls and check them against the SAVE database was unlawful.[1][2]
Supports. Court-related coverage says the ruling vacated DOJ's Voter List Maintenance Policy and held that the Civil Rights Act of 1960, the NVRA and HAVA did not authorize it, which matches 'ruled against the premise of the initial order.'[3][4][5]
Context. Sources do not support the claim's 'even states that complied should not have' detail as a separate holding; the ruling addressed DOJ's policy broadly, and other judges' rulings in later cases are described separately.[6][7]
Sources
7 sources: 1 fact-checker, 3 tier 2, 3 not rated
- 1US judge rules Justice Department use of voter rolls unlawfulreuters.com · fact-checker · cited for: contradicts, supports
- 2D.C. judge bars DOJ from gathering states' voter lists to find ...washingtonpost.com · tier 2 · cited for: contradicts, supports
- 3Justice Department ran ‘roughshod’ over civil rights with ...cnn.com · tier 2 · cited for: contradicts, supports
- 4Judge vacates DOJ voter-roll policy in Common Cause lawsuitdisputeindex.com · not rated · cited for: contradicts, supports
- 5Federal court sides with Common Cause and voters, ruling DOJ ...citizensforethics.org · not rated · cited for: supports
- 60 for 26: The Trump Administration’s Astonishing Losing Recordtheatlantic.com · tier 2 · cited for: context
- 7Again and Again, Judges Have Dismissed Trump's Voter ...yahoo.com · not rated · cited for: context
Where this claim was made
Said in 1 published post
Related claims
- The Department of Justice has lost 22 court cases regarding requests for state voter rolls, including district court and court of appeals decisions.True
- The Department of Justice began suing 30 states and D.C. last year to obtain unredacted voter rolls.True
- The Department of Justice has sued 30 states for unredacted voter lists and lost 23 of these cases.True
- The Department of Justice has sued approximately 30 states for not complying with requests for unredacted state voter rolls.True
- The Department of Justice subpoenaed the state of Nevada for their voter rolls.True