Status as of September 11, 2026. The complaint was filed September 10, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (League of United Latin American Citizens et al. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security et al., No. 1:26-cv-03157). No hearing date, temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction has been entered. The claims have not been adjudicated, and DHS and ICE have not filed a response.
Four plaintiffs — the League of United Latin American Citizens, Common Cause, UnidosUS, and the City and County of Denver — asked a federal judge in Washington on September 10 to declare unlawful any arrangement that puts armed federal immigration officers inside polling places during the November midterms, and to bar officers from carrying weapons where ballots are cast or collected. The suit was brought by Democracy Forward and names DHS and ICE as defendants along with Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin and ICE acting director David Venturella.
What triggered the suit
The filing points to remarks Mullin made to reporters on September 1. He said ICE was not there to patrol polling places, but did not rule out officers entering them — to respond to a specific threat, or to serve a warrant on someone they were already pursuing. Pressed on the point, he indicated that officers executing a warrant go where the warrant takes them.
Plaintiffs treat those statements as the announcement of a policy rather than an offhand answer, and it is that policy, as they frame it, that the lawsuit challenges. No written directive or public guidance authorizing deployments at voting sites has been released by the administration.
The statute at the center of the case
The claim rests on 18 U.S.C. § 592, a Civil War-era criminal provision enacted in the closing months of the conflict. It makes it an offense for an official to order, bring, keep or have under their authority "any troops or armed men" at any place where a general or special election is held. The statute carries one exception: where the force is needed to repel "armed enemies of the United States."
Plaintiffs' argument follows from the narrowness of that exception. Serving an immigration warrant or responding to a disturbance is not repelling an armed enemy, so, on their reading, no immigration-enforcement rationale can put armed officers lawfully inside a polling place — which in turn means any deployment under the policy exceeds the agencies' statutory authority.
What the complaint says has already happened
The 38-page complaint cites incidents from earlier in 2026 as evidence that the risk is not hypothetical: agents at a polling site in Ventura County, California, during a heavy voting period; agents approaching an election volunteer at a site in Syracuse, New York; and an arrest in the parking lot of a San Antonio polling location. Denver, the municipal plaintiff, says it is already revising poll-worker training to cover how to identify federal agents, document their presence and defuse encounters.
The harm plaintiffs assert is not limited to arrests. Their theory is that the prospect of armed officers is itself enough to keep eligible voters away and to turn polling places into sites of confrontation, complicating the work of local election officials. The complaint puts it in one line: "The specter of armed officers at polling places threatens the freedom" of the coming election.
What is not in dispute
Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said there are no military plans to send troops or National Guard personnel to polling locations. The case concerns civilian immigration officers, not the armed forces. Separately, figures outside the administration have publicly urged ICE to position itself at the polls; those calls are not government policy and are not what the suit challenges.
What happens next
Early voting in several states begins in September and October, which is what gives the case its clock. For plaintiffs to obtain relief before ballots are cast, they would need a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction; as of September 11 neither has been sought publicly on the docket. The government's response is due on the ordinary schedule unless the court expedites.
Frequently asked questions
Has a court barred ICE officers from polling places?
No. As of September 11, 2026 the case has only been filed. No temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction or ruling of any kind has been entered, and the defendants have not yet responded.
Is there an official policy sending ICE officers to polling places?
No written directive has been published. Plaintiffs characterize the September 1 remarks of the Homeland Security Secretary — that officers could enter polling places to serve warrants or respond to threats — as the policy they are challenging.
What law does the lawsuit rely on?
18 U.S.C. § 592, which prohibits officials from stationing troops or armed men at a place where a general or special election is held, except where necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States.
Official sources
| Resource | What it covers |
|---|---|
| LULAC et al. v. DHS et al., No. 1:26-cv-03157 (D.D.C.) | The docket, filings and any future orders in the case |
| 18 U.S.C. § 592 | The text of the prohibition the claim rests on |
| U.S. Election Assistance Commission | Voting procedures, early voting windows and state election offices |