Status as of October 29, 2026: A new federal lawsuit challenges how DHS and USCIS identify suspected noncitizen voters, arguing that the process singles out people who became U.S. citizens through naturalization or their parents. The October 28 complaint is not a ruling; the government has not been ordered to end the entire initiative in this case.
A person may have become a U.S. citizen years ago and still have an immigration registration number in an old government database. What happens when officials use that older record to decide whom to question about voting? Four civil rights organizations say the result is an unfair investigation of people who are already Americans.
On October 28, OCA–Asian Pacific American Advocates, its San Mateo and Sacramento chapters, and Common Cause filed a 37-page complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. In OCA–Asian Pacific American Advocates v. Department of Homeland Security, No. 3:26-cv-12617, they seek to stop a federal program known as the Unlawful Voter Initiative. Their central concern: citizenship records that do not reliably reflect naturalization can turn eligible voters into subjects of federal inquiries.
Why can a U.S. citizen appear on the list?
The initiative began in August 2026, according to the filing and evidence discussed in related litigation. The plaintiffs allege USCIS staff match names and immigration identifiers against voter records and send suspected cases to federal investigators. An A-number can remain associated with someone who entered as a noncitizen and later became a citizen. Americans born in the United States generally do not have that same immigration record.
The lawsuit says this creates unequal scrutiny: naturalized and derivative citizens—people who acquired citizenship through a parent—can be targeted by a method that may never flag someone who was a U.S. citizen from birth. The organizations also allege some personnel used voters' identifying information to access state registration portals as though they were the voters themselves, and recorded suspected cases in law-enforcement databases known as TECS.
These descriptions are the plaintiffs' allegations. Filing the complaint does not establish that every listed individual was a citizen, that every investigation was improper, or that any specific person lost citizenship. DHS maintains that investigating illegal voting is a legitimate enforcement objective; noncitizens generally cannot vote in federal elections.
What do the plaintiffs want the judge to do?
The groups ask the court to block the challenged investigative program, prevent federal officials from pressuring election administrators to discard or withhold otherwise valid ballots based on the lists, and require removal of certain records created by the initiative. Their legal claims invoke the Civil Rights Act's uniform voting standards, the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). They argue that singling out naturalized people and using unreliable records violates those requirements. The judge has not yet resolved those claims.
Didn't a California judge already restrict DHS checks?
Yes, but that was a different lawsuit and a narrower order. In California Nurses Association v. Mullin, a federal judge on October 21 issued a preliminary injunction limiting certain election-related field interviews and operations involving people officers knew or reasonably should have suspected were U.S. citizens in nine states. The court initially delayed the order's effect until October 23, and the operative status depends on any subsequent orders. That decision did not determine the new OCA complaint. Read Factum Immigration's report on the earlier nine-state injunction.
The cases are also different from an October 9 decision vacating the Justice Department's voter-roll maintenance policy and from the dispute over California ballot checks. They involve overlapping citizenship-data problems but different government practices, parties and legal remedies.
What should naturalized voters take from this?
Becoming a citizen by naturalization does not create a lesser category of U.S. citizenship. Eligible naturalized citizens have the same right to vote in federal elections as citizens born in the country, subject to the same ordinary voting requirements. A mistaken database match or an inquiry does not itself cancel someone's citizenship.
Anyone who believes their registration was wrongly flagged can check their voter-registration status with state or county election officials and retain citizenship and registration documentation. If agents contact them or a ballot is challenged, individualized advice from an appropriately qualified attorney or voting-rights organization is preferable to assumptions about a developing lawsuit.