Cybersecurity Policy Report, Court Declines to Block Trump’s Election ‘Integrity’ Order Over ‘Speculative’ Privacy Claims, (May 29, 2026)

By Tom Leithauser

It’s too soon to determine whether a White House plan to use Americans’ personal data held in federal databases to create “state citizenship lists” of eligible voters would violate the Privacy Act of 1974, a federal judge ruled yesterday.

Judge Carl Nichols of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied requests from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.), House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D., N.Y.), and a variety of Democratic Party and voting rights organizations for an injunction to block the Trump administration from implementing the provisions of an election “integrity” executive order (EO) issued by the president in late March.

The EO directs the Social Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security to use personal data held by federal agencies to create “state citizenship” lists of eligible voters. Those lists would be provided to state election officials to help identify ineligible voters. The EO also orders the U.S. Postal Service to initiate a rulemaking that would restrict postal delivery of absentee ballots to potentially fraudulent voters (CPR, April 1).

Sen. Schumer, Rep. Jeffries, and their fellow plaintiffs had sought an injunction, arguing that they would suffer privacy violations and other harm from the EO’s implementation (CPR, April 2).

But Judge Nichols said in yesterday’s ruling that the potential harms from the EO remain speculative, and he denied the plaintiffs’ requests to block the EO’s implementation (DSCC, et al., v. Trump et al., No. 1:26-cv-01114 (D.D.C. Apr. 1, 2026)).

The Postal Service, for example, “has not yet issued a notice of proposed rulemaking or responded to comments it might receive, let alone adopted a final rule. Until then, Plaintiffs’ claims are not ripe, and they cannot establish that they would suffer harm that is both imminent and irreparable absent preliminary injunctive relief,” the judge said.

In addition, the state citizenship lists have not yet been created and shared with state election officials, Judge Nichols said. “Plaintiffs argue that their members will be harmed by the transmission of their personal information to the States, ... but that injury is currently too speculative,” he said. “As a result, whether the government’s actions under the Order are lawful or unlawful will depend on how those agencies decide to implement the Order.”

“The Court recognizes that the agencies may implement the Order in ways that Plaintiffs will contend are unlawful,” he added. “But it is not until such actions are taken that Plaintiffs’ claims might be ripe for judicial review.”

MainStory: TopStory FederalLegislation LitigationEnforcement DataPrivacy