Federal Court Dismisses DOJ Lawsuit Against Rhode Island
Federal judge Mary McElroy rejects DOJ effort to obtain unredacted Rhode Island voter data, citing privacy and lack of authority.
The United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island has dismissed a federal lawsuit seeking to compel the state to surrender sensitive, unredacted voter records. On April 17, 2026, U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy ruled that the Department of Justice (DOJ) exceeded its statutory authority in its attempt to obtain non-public information on approximately 750,000 registered voters. The case, United States v. Amore, centered on whether federal agencies can bypass Rhode Island voter privacy statutes to conduct wide-scale eligibility audits.
Judge McElroy’s decision marks a significant development in voting rights litigation 2026, addressing the tension between state vs federal election authority and the limits of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). The court’s dismissal of the DOJ election lawsuit update affirms the legal standing of Rhode Island Secretary of State Gregg Amore, who had previously offered public records while refusing to disclose Social Security digits and driver’s license numbers.
The ruling clarifies that federal investigations into voter list maintenance requirements do not grant the executive branch a “roving commission” to centralize sensitive citizen data without specific evidence of wrongdoing. By categorizing the DOJ’s request as a federal fishing expedition legal definition, the court protected non-public voter file disclosure laws from federal preemption under the current circumstances.
The Core of the Ruling: US v Amore Case Summary
The litigation began in December 2025 when the DOJ sued Secretary of State Gregg Amore, seeking unredacted digital copies of the state’s voter rolls. The federal government argued that under Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960, the Attorney General possesses broad authority to inspect all records relating to “any application, registration, payment of poll tax, or other act requisite to voting.”
However, Judge McElroy found that the DOJ failed to provide a “plausible purpose” for demanding sensitive personal identifiers. The court noted that while the federal government has a role in ensuring NVRA Section 8 compliance, that role does not automatically override state-level protections for unredacted voter record privacy risks.
Rhode Island officials had already expressed willingness to share the public version of the voter file, which includes names, addresses, and party affiliations. The DOJ’s insistence on obtaining private data, such as the last four digits of Social Security numbers, was deemed an “unprecedented” overreach that lacked a clear connection to a specific investigation of voting discrimination or criminal activity.
Key Facts: United States v. Amore (2026)
| Feature | Legal Detail |
| Presiding Judge | U.S. District Judge Mary S. McElroy |
| Primary Defendant | Gregg M. Amore, RI Secretary of State |
| Date of Dismissal | April 17, 2026 |
| Statutes Cited | NVRA, HAVA, Civil Rights Act of 1960 |
| Core Dispute | Disclosure of unredacted voter PII (Personally Identifiable Information) |
| Court’s Conclusion | DOJ lacked statutory authority for “fishing expedition” |
Analyzing NVRA Section 8 and Voter List Maintenance
A central component of the government’s argument was the requirement for states to conduct “reasonable” voter list maintenance. Under NVRA Section 8 compliance, states must remove ineligible voters from the rolls due to death or change of residence. The DOJ contended that it required unredacted data to verify if Rhode Island was meeting these federal standards.
The court’s analysis, however, separated the duty to maintain lists from the authority of the federal government to seize private data for independent audits. Judge McElroy’s ruling suggested that the voter list maintenance requirements are primarily a state responsibility, and the federal government’s oversight role is not an invitation to build a national database of private voter information.
Legal intervenors in the case, including the ACLU of Rhode Island and Common Cause, argued that centralizing this data would create a “goldmine for hackers” and could be used for voter intimidation. The court’s dismissal reinforces the principle that non-public voter file disclosure laws are a valid exercise of state power to protect the electoral process and individual privacy.
The Federal Fishing Expedition Legal Definition
In legal terms, a “fishing expedition” refers to an investigative or discovery request that is overly broad, speculative, and not grounded in specific facts or evidence of a violation. Judge McElroy explicitly used this terminology to describe the DOJ’s request for Rhode Island’s entire voter database.
The court noted that the DOJ did not allege any specific instances of non-compliance or fraud that would justify such an invasive production of records. Instead, the government sought the data to “probe” for potential issues. The ruling establishes a high bar for the federal government when it seeks to compel states to hand over data that is specifically protected by state privacy laws.
“Neither the NVRA nor HAVA [Help America Vote Act] authorize DOJ to conduct the kind of fishing expedition it seeks here,” Judge McElroy wrote in her 14-page ruling.
This framing suggests that for the DOJ to succeed in future litigation, it must demonstrate a “plausible basis” for its demands, rather than relying on its general enforcement mandate.
State vs Federal Election Authority
The Rhode Island Secretary of State response highlighted the constitutional stakes of the case. Gregg Amore argued that the administration of elections is a power reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment, subject only to specific federal constraints.
The decision in US v Amore supports the view that while federal laws like the NVRA provide a framework, they do not grant the executive branch plenary power over state-held records. This creates a buffer for state officials who must balance federal transparency requirements with state-mandated privacy obligations.
Comparative Context: Recent Federal Rulings
Rhode Island is not the first state to challenge these data demands. The 2026 ruling follows similar setbacks for the DOJ in other jurisdictions.
California: Federal courts rejected similar broad data demands, citing privacy concerns.
Massachusetts: Judges questioned the use of the 1960 Civil Rights Act as a tool for general list auditing.
Michigan & Oregon: Recent decisions have consistently favored state privacy protections over federal data-gathering efforts lacking specific cause.
Public Interest and Unredacted Voter Record Privacy Risks
The human-centric impact of this ruling involves the security of personal data for roughly 750,000 Rhode Islanders. Had the court ruled in favor of the DOJ, sensitive information—including driver’s license numbers—could have been transferred to federal servers and potentially shared across various agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security.
Advocates for voter privacy argued that such a transfer increases the risk of data breaches and could have a chilling effect on voter registration. If citizens believe their private identifiers are subject to federal seizure without cause, they may be less likely to participate in the democratic process.
The court’s decision ensures that for now, the Gregg Amore legal status regarding these records remains one of stewardship under state law rather than forced compliance with federal mandates.
Why This Matters: A Legal Analysis
This ruling is significant because it limits the ability of the executive branch to use 20th-century civil rights laws as a vehicle for 21st-century mass data collection. By strictly interpreting Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960, the court has signaled that “investigatory power” is not synonymous with “unlimited access.”
For legal professionals and policy observers, the case underscores the following:
Statutory Interpretation: Courts are hesitant to expand federal power through creative interpretations of older statutes.
Privacy as a Priority: Voter privacy is increasingly being treated as a substantial state interest that can block federal overreach.
Judicial Oversight: The ruling reinforces the judiciary’s role in testing the “plausibility” of government demands, even when the government claims broad enforcement powers.
The DOJ has not yet announced whether it will appeal the decision to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. If the ruling stands, it will likely serve as a persuasive precedent for other states facing similar federal demands for unredacted voter files.
Key Legal Components in US v. Amore
National Voter Registration Act (NVRA): Requires states to keep accurate voter rolls but does not explicitly authorize federal seizure of non-public PII for auditing purposes.
Title III, Civil Rights Act of 1960: Originally intended to allow the DOJ to investigate racial discrimination in voting by inspecting records; now being tested for modern list maintenance audits.
Rhode Island General Laws: Statutes that classify certain voter information, like Social Security numbers, as confidential and exempt from public records requests.
Broad Legal Significance of the Dismissal
The dismissal of US v Amore contributes to a growing body of case law that protects state-held data from federal consolidation. As election integrity remains a high-profile political issue, the courts appear to be acting as a firewall against the creation of a centralized, federalized voter database—an entity that Congress has never formally authorized.
For Rhode Island voters, the ruling maintains the status quo: their public information remains accessible for transparency, while their private identifiers remain under state protection. The decision affirms that while the federal government may monitor state compliance with election laws, it must do so through established legal channels that respect the privacy of the individual and the sovereignty of the state.
Stay sharp with Ongoing Now!
Source and Data Limitations: This report is based on the April 17, 2026, ruling by U.S. District Judge Mary S. McElroy in the case United States v. Gregg M. Amore (Case No. 1:25-cv-00639-MSM-PAS). Primary sources include the court’s 14-page dismissal order, official statements from the Rhode Island Secretary of State’s Office, and the Rhode Island Attorney General’s Office. Comparative data regarding other state challenges (CA, MA, MI, OR) is based on public court records from late 2025 and early 2026. This article excludes speculative commentary regarding future appeals or unverified claims of voter fraud. This is informational only and not legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney for your situation.
