Judge Barlow Dismisses DOJ Utah Voter Roll Suit, Citing Civil Rights Act Limits

Key points

• Judge David Barlow dismissed the DOJ’s suit against Utah Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson with prejudice, preventing refiling of the same claim.
• Barlow ruled that the Civil Rights Act of 1960 applies only to records that 'come into' an official’s possession, not data the official creates and maintains.
• The DOJ sought sensitive data including names, birth dates, addresses, and partial Social Security numbers of Utah voters.
• This is the 27th district court defeat for the Trump administration’s voter roll litigation strategy; the DOJ has appealed most losses.
• The DOJ threatened Henderson and other election officials with criminal prosecution if they failed to surrender voter rolls.
• Henderson, a Republican, cited state and federal privacy laws, including the Privacy Act and Driver’s Privacy Protection Act, to refuse compliance.

Background

This ruling follows a broader federal campaign to access state voter rolls, which began in 2025. The administration has sued 30 states and D.C., with courts consistently rejecting the claims. Earlier archive coverage noted that the DOJ’s efforts to block California mail ballots and challenge other state election practices have also faced legal hurdles, with courts finding the administration’s evidence of widespread voter fraud lacking. The current case is part of a pattern where federal courts have blocked executive attempts to override state election administration.

How outlets are covering it

Fox News and FOX 13 Utah reported the dismissal as a loss for the administration but noted the DOJ’s intent to appeal. The New Yorker framed the case as part of a broader authoritarian attempt to undermine elections, highlighting the personal threats faced by election officials like Henderson. The Salt Lake Tribune emphasized the legal reasoning, noting that Barlow’s ruling focused on the Civil Rights Act’s text rather than privacy concerns, and highlighted the lack of evidence for widespread voter fraud in Utah. All sources agree that the DOJ has failed to secure voter rolls in most states, but they differ in emphasis: Fox focuses on the legal defeat, The New Yorker on the political and personal risks to officials, and The Salt Lake Tribune on the specific legal interpretation and local political reactions.

Why it matters

The ruling reinforces the legal boundaries of federal power over state election administration and protects voter privacy. It demonstrates that even Trump-appointed judges can rule against the administration’s election-related lawsuits. The case highlights the tension between federal enforcement claims and state sovereignty, with implications for the integrity of the November 3 midterms. The DOJ’s continued litigation and threats of prosecution underscore the ongoing conflict over election oversight and the role of courts in mediating disputes between federal and state authorities.

What to watch

The DOJ is expected to appeal the ruling to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver. The department has also announced it will send election monitors to Utah for the November 3 election, though Henderson has stated they must comply with state laws. The administration continues to pursue other voter roll cases in Hawaii, Idaho, and Delaware, and has appealed losses in California and Oregon. The outcome of the appeal will be critical in determining whether the DOJ can secure broader access to state voter databases in the future.