The Justice Department on Sunday urged a federal judge to consider whether an immigrant rights group and its lawyers should face contempt proceedings after they published an analysis that found more than 40 per cent of the names on the government's list of suspected noncitizen voters in California do not appear on the state's voter file. The filing, two days before the midterm elections, turns a dispute over a single dataset into a courtroom confrontation over whether the group broke the judge's rules for handling it.

Key Points

• The Justice Department filed on Sunday asking Chief Judge James Boasberg to consider contempt action against the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA) and its lawyers.
• The department says CHIRLA's published analysis of the California voter list violated Boasberg's order limiting use of the data to arguments about legal standing.
• The analysis, filed on Saturday by the UCLA Voting Rights Project for CHIRLA, found 8,880 of 20,930 names (42 per cent) match no one on California's current voter file.
• CHIRLA's side says its counsel and experts "fully complied with the Court's orders", according to a UCLA spokesman.
• In a separate case on Sunday, the department also appealed a Friday ruling by Judge Trina L. Thompson barring it from demanding election offices remove possible noncitizens from voter rolls.

What Happened

The sequence began on Friday, when Boasberg, the chief judge of the federal court in Washington, allowed CHIRLA access to federal government data on about 20,000 people the Trump administration alleges are noncitizen voters in California. The access came with conditions: Boasberg ordered the plaintiffs not to disclose any names on the list and to use the data only for their arguments about why they have legal standing to challenge the administration's use of it. Standing, the question of whether a plaintiff is directly affected enough to bring a case, is the threshold issue in the lawsuit, and the judge's order was designed to keep the data confined to that question.

On Saturday, attorneys for CHIRLA filed court papers revealing the results of their analysis, carried out by the UCLA Voting Rights Project. The headline finding was stark: of the 20,930 names the department calls likely noncitizens, 8,880, or about 42 per cent, do not match anyone on California's current voter file. The analysis also identified 22 people on the list who were likely naturalised American citizens, and said thousands more American citizens appeared to be on it. Those findings, published two days before voters go to the polls, immediately became part of the election-eve argument over the administration's voter-fraud claims.

On Sunday, the Justice Department hit back. In its filing, it defended the accuracy of the list, said the analysis had nothing to do with the group's legal standing and therefore violated Boasberg's order, and suggested the judge refer the matter to the department for investigation for possible criminal contempt of court. The filing's language was unsparing, calling the report "political grandstanding about alleged inaccuracies that purportedly impact California voters generally, or comparisons between the government's list and the full 'California voter file'", and saying that material "has no relevance to whether the particular plaintiffs in this case have standing". No contempt order has been issued; the department has asked the judge to consider whether one should follow.

Background and Context

The California list sits at the centre of a much larger pre-election legal campaign. The administration has said the list was carefully compiled from the state's own voter registration data and compared against federal citizenship records. It has issued a series of subpoenas to election offices in California and warned election officials who knowingly let noncitizens vote that they could face criminal charges. In a separate order in October, Boasberg directed the administration to list, by October 30, every state it had contacted over noncitizen voting, with a ruling planned for Monday, November 2, the day before the midterms, in a lawsuit brought by Democratic leaders.

The UCLA analysis is the first independent test of the list to reach a court filing, and its numbers explain why the administration reacted so sharply. If more than four in ten names on a list of alleged noncitizen voters do not appear on the voter file at all, the list's value as evidence of illegal voting is thrown into doubt, and the inclusion of likely citizens raises the question of whether eligible voters could be swept up in challenges or removals. California's governor has already warned the state's top federal judges that federal agents might seek warrants to seize ballots before certification, in a letter that framed the list dispute as part of a wider confrontation over the election machinery itself.

DOJ California Voter List: What the Judge Must Decide

Boasberg now faces two distinct questions, and it is important not to merge them. The first is procedural: did CHIRLA and its lawyers go beyond the limits he set when he granted access to the data? The department says yes, because the analysis addressed the list's general accuracy rather than the plaintiffs' standing. CHIRLA's side says no: Alberto Lammers, a spokesman for the UCLA Voting Rights Project, which filed the case and did the analysis, said in an emailed statement that "Plaintiffs' counsel and their experts fully complied with the Court's orders." That disagreement is now squarely before the judge, and a contempt finding, if one came, would be a serious sanction against lawyers and a rights group in the middle of an election case.

The second question is substantive, and it will not be settled by a contempt ruling either way: how accurate is the list? The department maintains that it was carefully compiled and defends its accuracy; the UCLA analysis says 42 per cent of its names match no voter at all. Both claims cannot fully stand, and the court filings so far do not resolve the gap. Possible explanations, none of which the reporting checked for this article confirms, include mismatches in how names are recorded across databases, voters who have moved or been removed from the rolls, and errors in the underlying citizenship matching. What is confirmed is narrower: the two sides disagree sharply, the judge has the dispute, and the election is on Tuesday.

Reactions and Quotes

The Justice Department's filing is the most quotable document in the case so far. Beyond the "political grandstanding" passage, it argued that the report's comparisons "have no relevance" to standing, and it asked Boasberg to consider referring the matter for investigation for possible criminal contempt. CHIRLA's response, through the UCLA spokesman, was short and categorical: full compliance with the court's orders. The administration's broader position, repeated in the filing, is that the list was carefully compiled from state registration data checked against federal citizenship records, and that officials who knowingly permit noncitizen voting could face criminal charges. No ruling from Boasberg on the contempt suggestion had been reported at the time of writing, and this article does not treat the department's request as a finding against CHIRLA.

Why It Matters

The case matters for three reasons that converge on Election Day. First, it tests whether courts can control how sensitive voter data is used in politically charged litigation: if the judge finds a violation, it will chill how plaintiffs handle government datasets in future cases; if he finds compliance, it will embolden challenges to official lists. Second, it goes to the credibility of one of the administration's central election claims, that large numbers of noncitizens are registered to vote. A list in which 42 per cent of names match no voter is a weak foundation for that claim, and the administration's aggressive response suggests it knows how damaging the analysis could be if it stands.

Third, the companion appeal matters in its own right. Judge Thompson's Friday ruling barred the department from demanding that election offices remove possible noncitizens from voter rolls, separate their ballots or threaten legal action, and the department's Sunday appeal seeks to undo that bar. Together, the two Sunday moves show a department fighting on two fronts at once: defending its list in Washington while trying to preserve its leverage over election offices in California. Both fights will still be live when voters cast their ballots on Tuesday.

What Happens Next

The next step is Boasberg's. He may rule quickly on the contempt suggestion, defer it until after the election, or hold a hearing on whether the order was breached. Any ruling will be watched closely, because it will set the terms for how the underlying lawsuit proceeds and for whether the UCLA analysis remains part of the public record in the form CHIRLA filed it. Separately, the Thompson appeal will move through the courts on its own timetable, and the ruling Boasberg had planned for Monday, November 2, in the Democratic leaders' lawsuit over the noncitizen-voting contacts, remains a further date to watch.

For voters, the practical point is simpler. The existence of the list, and the dispute over it, does not change anyone's eligibility to vote on Tuesday, and no voter has been removed from the rolls by the filings described here. What the dispute does change is the argument around the election: one side says the list proves a problem, the other says the list itself is the problem, and a federal judge is now being asked to decide, at least in part, who broke the rules in proving it.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the Justice Department ask for on Sunday? It asked Chief Judge James Boasberg to consider whether CHIRLA and its lawyers should face contempt proceedings, and suggested referring the matter for investigation for possible criminal contempt, over their published analysis of the California voter list.

What did the analysis find? That 8,880 of 20,930 names (42 per cent) on the government's list of alleged noncitizen voters in California match no one on the state's current voter file, and that 22 people on the list were likely naturalised citizens.

What does CHIRLA say? Through a UCLA Voting Rights Project spokesman, that its counsel and experts "fully complied with the Court's orders".

Has anyone been held in contempt? No. The department has asked the judge to consider it; no contempt order had been reported at the time of writing.

What about the separate Thompson case? On Sunday the department also appealed a Friday ruling by Judge Trina L. Thompson barring it from demanding election offices remove possible noncitizens, separate their ballots or threaten legal action.

Related coverage: Newsom warns judges as California ballot list errors exposed before midterms, Arizona voter registration probe: DOJ refers three groups to FBI and DOJ appeals Alaska Senate lawsuit after judge dismisses ballot challenge.

Sources: Associated Press report, November 1, 2026, via La Nacion, KCAU and LA Post; Justice Department Sunday filing as quoted in the AP report; UCLA Voting Rights Project statement via spokesman Alberto Lammers; Boasberg Friday access order and October 30 listing order as previously reported. The featured image is an illustrative photograph of a federal courthouse exterior, not a photograph of the proceedings in this case. The contempt request is a request to the judge, not a finding.