Alaska
Groups sue election officials, allege the sharing of voter data with DOJ was unconstitutional
JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — Voting and civil rights groups sued Alaska elections officials Wednesday, alleging that their sharing of the state’s full voter registration list with the U.S. Department of Justice violates the state constitution.
Alaska is one of at least 12 states that has provided or said it would provide detailed information about its voters — including date of birth, driver’s license number or partial Social Security number — to the Trump administration, according to the Brennan Center. Alaska and Texas also signed agreements when they shared data in which the department outlined plans for its own analysis of voter files, its plans to flag voter list issues and directions for removing voters deemed ineligible.
Several other states provided the data, but refused those agreements, as part of a wide-ranging effort by the Justice Department to obtain detailed voter data from every state. Some elections officials have expressed concern the information being sought could be used by the Trump administration to search for possible noncitizens.
The Alaska lawsuit was filed in state court against state Division of Elections officials by the League of Women Voters of Alaska and Alaska Black Caucus. It alleges the handing over of personal data on the voter list violates the right to privacy under the state constitution. It also says the memorandum of understanding violates due process by allowing the Justice Department to flag voters for removal “without any apparent notice or process for impacted voters to challenge those decisions.”
The lawsuit names as defendants Republican Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom, who oversees the division, and division Director Carol Beecher.
Sam Curtis, a spokesperson with the state Department of Law, said by email that it would be premature to comment on specific claims raised in the lawsuit. But Curtis said the department has previously explained in public hearings that state law “expressly permits the sharing of this information for authorized governmental purposes. That statute is on the books, and we will defend it.”
“Alaska statutes contain numerous provisions that allow the sharing of otherwise non-public or confidential information with law enforcement,” Curtis said.
The plaintiffs are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska, ACLU Voting Rights Project and the Electronic Privacy Information Center.
The Justice Department has sued at least 30 states and the District of Columbia to try to force the release of the data, according to a tally by the Brennan Center. Judges have rejected those efforts in California, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oregon and most recently, Rhode Island. A judge in Georgia dismissed a Justice Department lawsuit after ruling it had been filed in the wrong city. It was subsequently refiled.
In the Rhode Island case, Justice Department attorneys acknowledged the department was seeking unredacted voter information so it could be shared with the Department of Homeland Security to check citizenship status.
In addition to the state court lawsuit in Alaska, at least four federal lawsuits have been filed around the U.S. seeking to stop the Justice Department from collecting information from unredacted voter registration files or to prevent states from taking steps to cancel or suspend people’s voter registrations based on the federal project.
During a legislative hearing in Alaska last month, Rachel Witty, an attorney with the state Department of Law, told lawmakers the state had a “compelling interest” to comply with the federal request.
“To ensure the integrity of elections, there was a mutual interest in maintaining voters rolls that were accurate and current,” she said.
The Alaska lawsuit describes the process under state law for maintaining voter rolls and states that there are only limited circumstances under which a voter’s registration can be promptly canceled — “upon death or conviction of a felony involving moral turpitude.” It says that while elections officials have said they will only remove voters “to the extent allowed by state and federal law,” that interpretation is “irreconcilable with the plain language” of the agreement signed with the Justice Department.
The plaintiffs are asking a judge to void the agreement and require the elections division to make “reasonable efforts” to ensure the immediate destruction by the Justice Department of any hard copies and electronic versions of the list that was shared.
“Rather than fiercely defending the rights of Alaska’s voters, our Division of Elections acceded to federal overreach,” Eric Glatt, legal director for the ACLU of Alaska, said in a statement. “Now, we are asking the court to step in and ensure that DOE upholds its constitutional and legal obligations to Alaskans.”
California
Federal appeals court blocks California law requiring federal agents to wear identification
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A federal appeals court issued an order Wednesday blocking a California law requiring federal immigration agents to wear identification, another blow to the state’s attempts to limit the Trump administration’s aggressive enforcement tactics.
The Trump administration argued that it would threaten the safety of officers who are facing harassment, doxing, and violence and that it violated the constitution because the state was directly seeking to regulate the federal government.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an injunction pending appeal. It had earlier blocked the law from taking effect.
The decision could have implications nationwide for other states that have pursued their own measures to place restrictions on immigration agents.
The measure was one of two major pieces of legislation enacted last fall aimed at reining in federal immigration agents after a sweeping crackdown on illegal immigration in Southern California in June. The other law would have banned most law enforcement officers from wearing masks, neck gaiters, and other facial coverings. Advocates have raised concerns about masked agents conducting workplace raids or arresting people on the street, often without showing identification.
The Trump administration sued over both in November.
A federal judge blocked the mask ban in February, ruling that it discriminated against the federal government because it did not apply to state troopers. The law made exceptions for undercover agents, protective equipment like N95 respirators or tactical gear, and other situations where not wearing a mask would jeopardize the operation. That judge let the ID law stand.
At an appeal hearing March 3, Justice Department lawyers argued that the California identification requirement law sought to regulate the federal government, violating the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.
The appeals court agreed unanimously, saying the law “attempts to directly regulate the United States in its performance of governmental functions,” in an opinion written by Judge Mark J. Bennett. The panel was composed of two Trump appointees, Bennett and Daniel P. Collins, and Obama appointee Jacqueline H. Nguyen.
California lawyers argued that the law applied equally to all law enforcement officers without discriminating against the U.S. government, and that states could apply “generally applicable” laws federal agents. They also argued that the law was important to address public safety concerns.
People are more likely to attack officers in self-defense if there’s no visible identification letting the public know they are law enforcement, California lawyers said in a brief.
In October 2025, the Federal Bureau of Investigation issued a report warning that the increase in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity had spurred “criminal actors impersonating ICE agents to commit violent crime,” California attorneys noted.
The appeals court judges said they did not consider the public safety factors because the federal government has demonstrated its constitutional rights would be violated by the legislation, and “all citizens have a stake in upholding the Constitution.”
When a lower court struck down California’s mask ban, it left open another way of achieving the same goal. The judges in that case had indicated they would be more open to a law that banned masks for all law enforcement officers, not just federal ones. A new California bill attempts to revive the mask restrictions by also applying them to state troopers.
But the appeals court’s opinion signals a stricter view on the state government’s ability to regulate federal officers.
“The Supremacy Clause prohibits States from enacting a law that directly regulates federal operations even if the law regulates state operations in the same manner,” the judges wrote.
First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli called it a “huge legal victory” in a post on X.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office said they are reviewing the order.
Washington
Justice Department reaches $1.25 million settlement with Trump 2016 campaign aide over Russia probe
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department has settled for $1.25 million a lawsuit from an aide to President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign who was the target of secret surveillance during the FBI’s Russia investigation.
Carter Page asserted in a 2020 lawsuit that he was the victim of “unlawful spying” by an FBI agency that was investigating whether Trump’s 2016 campaign had conspired with Russia to affect the outcome of the election. The lawsuit alleged a series of omissions and errors made by FBI and Justice Department officials in applications they submitted in 2016 and 2017 to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to eavesdrop on Page on suspicion that he was an agent of Russia.
Page vigorously denied any claim of improper ties to Russia and was never charged with any wrongdoing.
Page appealed to the Supreme Court after lower courts tossed out his suit, with appellate judges saying last year that he had waited too long to file his complaint. But as the appeal was pending, the Trump administration informed the Supreme Court on Wednesday that it had reached a settlement with Page on his claims against the federal government. The settlement does not cover claims Page had made against former FBI officials he had also sued.
The court filing to the Supreme Court did not reveal a dollar figure, but a person familiar with the matter who insisted on anonymity to discuss non-public information said the amount of the deal was $1.25 million.
Page’s lawsuit followed a harshly critical Justice Department inspector general report that found significant problems with the four surveillance applications. Former FBI and Justice Department leaders who were involved in signing off on the surveillance have since said they wouldn’t have done so had they known of the extent of the issues, and the FBI has said it had initiated more than 40 corrective steps aimed at improving the accuracy and thoroughness of applications.
Despite the problems with the warrant applications, the scrutiny of Page accounted for only a narrow portion of the overall investigation into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.
An investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller concluded that Russia had interfered on Trump’s behalf during the 2016 campaign and that the campaign welcomed the assistance. Mueller’s team said it did not find sufficient evidence to establish a criminal conspiracy between the campaign and Russia.
The Justice Department in March settled a separate lawsuit with another figure from the Trump-Russia probe, reaching a roughly $1.2 million settlement with Michael Flynn, the former Trump national security adviser who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his conversations with a top Russian diplomat and was later pardoned.
Groups sue election officials, allege the sharing of voter data with DOJ was unconstitutional
JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — Voting and civil rights groups sued Alaska elections officials Wednesday, alleging that their sharing of the state’s full voter registration list with the U.S. Department of Justice violates the state constitution.
Alaska is one of at least 12 states that has provided or said it would provide detailed information about its voters — including date of birth, driver’s license number or partial Social Security number — to the Trump administration, according to the Brennan Center. Alaska and Texas also signed agreements when they shared data in which the department outlined plans for its own analysis of voter files, its plans to flag voter list issues and directions for removing voters deemed ineligible.
Several other states provided the data, but refused those agreements, as part of a wide-ranging effort by the Justice Department to obtain detailed voter data from every state. Some elections officials have expressed concern the information being sought could be used by the Trump administration to search for possible noncitizens.
The Alaska lawsuit was filed in state court against state Division of Elections officials by the League of Women Voters of Alaska and Alaska Black Caucus. It alleges the handing over of personal data on the voter list violates the right to privacy under the state constitution. It also says the memorandum of understanding violates due process by allowing the Justice Department to flag voters for removal “without any apparent notice or process for impacted voters to challenge those decisions.”
The lawsuit names as defendants Republican Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom, who oversees the division, and division Director Carol Beecher.
Sam Curtis, a spokesperson with the state Department of Law, said by email that it would be premature to comment on specific claims raised in the lawsuit. But Curtis said the department has previously explained in public hearings that state law “expressly permits the sharing of this information for authorized governmental purposes. That statute is on the books, and we will defend it.”
“Alaska statutes contain numerous provisions that allow the sharing of otherwise non-public or confidential information with law enforcement,” Curtis said.
The plaintiffs are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska, ACLU Voting Rights Project and the Electronic Privacy Information Center.
The Justice Department has sued at least 30 states and the District of Columbia to try to force the release of the data, according to a tally by the Brennan Center. Judges have rejected those efforts in California, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oregon and most recently, Rhode Island. A judge in Georgia dismissed a Justice Department lawsuit after ruling it had been filed in the wrong city. It was subsequently refiled.
In the Rhode Island case, Justice Department attorneys acknowledged the department was seeking unredacted voter information so it could be shared with the Department of Homeland Security to check citizenship status.
In addition to the state court lawsuit in Alaska, at least four federal lawsuits have been filed around the U.S. seeking to stop the Justice Department from collecting information from unredacted voter registration files or to prevent states from taking steps to cancel or suspend people’s voter registrations based on the federal project.
During a legislative hearing in Alaska last month, Rachel Witty, an attorney with the state Department of Law, told lawmakers the state had a “compelling interest” to comply with the federal request.
“To ensure the integrity of elections, there was a mutual interest in maintaining voters rolls that were accurate and current,” she said.
The Alaska lawsuit describes the process under state law for maintaining voter rolls and states that there are only limited circumstances under which a voter’s registration can be promptly canceled — “upon death or conviction of a felony involving moral turpitude.” It says that while elections officials have said they will only remove voters “to the extent allowed by state and federal law,” that interpretation is “irreconcilable with the plain language” of the agreement signed with the Justice Department.
The plaintiffs are asking a judge to void the agreement and require the elections division to make “reasonable efforts” to ensure the immediate destruction by the Justice Department of any hard copies and electronic versions of the list that was shared.
“Rather than fiercely defending the rights of Alaska’s voters, our Division of Elections acceded to federal overreach,” Eric Glatt, legal director for the ACLU of Alaska, said in a statement. “Now, we are asking the court to step in and ensure that DOE upholds its constitutional and legal obligations to Alaskans.”
California
Federal appeals court blocks California law requiring federal agents to wear identification
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A federal appeals court issued an order Wednesday blocking a California law requiring federal immigration agents to wear identification, another blow to the state’s attempts to limit the Trump administration’s aggressive enforcement tactics.
The Trump administration argued that it would threaten the safety of officers who are facing harassment, doxing, and violence and that it violated the constitution because the state was directly seeking to regulate the federal government.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an injunction pending appeal. It had earlier blocked the law from taking effect.
The decision could have implications nationwide for other states that have pursued their own measures to place restrictions on immigration agents.
The measure was one of two major pieces of legislation enacted last fall aimed at reining in federal immigration agents after a sweeping crackdown on illegal immigration in Southern California in June. The other law would have banned most law enforcement officers from wearing masks, neck gaiters, and other facial coverings. Advocates have raised concerns about masked agents conducting workplace raids or arresting people on the street, often without showing identification.
The Trump administration sued over both in November.
A federal judge blocked the mask ban in February, ruling that it discriminated against the federal government because it did not apply to state troopers. The law made exceptions for undercover agents, protective equipment like N95 respirators or tactical gear, and other situations where not wearing a mask would jeopardize the operation. That judge let the ID law stand.
At an appeal hearing March 3, Justice Department lawyers argued that the California identification requirement law sought to regulate the federal government, violating the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.
The appeals court agreed unanimously, saying the law “attempts to directly regulate the United States in its performance of governmental functions,” in an opinion written by Judge Mark J. Bennett. The panel was composed of two Trump appointees, Bennett and Daniel P. Collins, and Obama appointee Jacqueline H. Nguyen.
California lawyers argued that the law applied equally to all law enforcement officers without discriminating against the U.S. government, and that states could apply “generally applicable” laws federal agents. They also argued that the law was important to address public safety concerns.
People are more likely to attack officers in self-defense if there’s no visible identification letting the public know they are law enforcement, California lawyers said in a brief.
In October 2025, the Federal Bureau of Investigation issued a report warning that the increase in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity had spurred “criminal actors impersonating ICE agents to commit violent crime,” California attorneys noted.
The appeals court judges said they did not consider the public safety factors because the federal government has demonstrated its constitutional rights would be violated by the legislation, and “all citizens have a stake in upholding the Constitution.”
When a lower court struck down California’s mask ban, it left open another way of achieving the same goal. The judges in that case had indicated they would be more open to a law that banned masks for all law enforcement officers, not just federal ones. A new California bill attempts to revive the mask restrictions by also applying them to state troopers.
But the appeals court’s opinion signals a stricter view on the state government’s ability to regulate federal officers.
“The Supremacy Clause prohibits States from enacting a law that directly regulates federal operations even if the law regulates state operations in the same manner,” the judges wrote.
First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli called it a “huge legal victory” in a post on X.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office said they are reviewing the order.
Washington
Justice Department reaches $1.25 million settlement with Trump 2016 campaign aide over Russia probe
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department has settled for $1.25 million a lawsuit from an aide to President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign who was the target of secret surveillance during the FBI’s Russia investigation.
Carter Page asserted in a 2020 lawsuit that he was the victim of “unlawful spying” by an FBI agency that was investigating whether Trump’s 2016 campaign had conspired with Russia to affect the outcome of the election. The lawsuit alleged a series of omissions and errors made by FBI and Justice Department officials in applications they submitted in 2016 and 2017 to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to eavesdrop on Page on suspicion that he was an agent of Russia.
Page vigorously denied any claim of improper ties to Russia and was never charged with any wrongdoing.
Page appealed to the Supreme Court after lower courts tossed out his suit, with appellate judges saying last year that he had waited too long to file his complaint. But as the appeal was pending, the Trump administration informed the Supreme Court on Wednesday that it had reached a settlement with Page on his claims against the federal government. The settlement does not cover claims Page had made against former FBI officials he had also sued.
The court filing to the Supreme Court did not reveal a dollar figure, but a person familiar with the matter who insisted on anonymity to discuss non-public information said the amount of the deal was $1.25 million.
Page’s lawsuit followed a harshly critical Justice Department inspector general report that found significant problems with the four surveillance applications. Former FBI and Justice Department leaders who were involved in signing off on the surveillance have since said they wouldn’t have done so had they known of the extent of the issues, and the FBI has said it had initiated more than 40 corrective steps aimed at improving the accuracy and thoroughness of applications.
Despite the problems with the warrant applications, the scrutiny of Page accounted for only a narrow portion of the overall investigation into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.
An investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller concluded that Russia had interfered on Trump’s behalf during the 2016 campaign and that the campaign welcomed the assistance. Mueller’s team said it did not find sufficient evidence to establish a criminal conspiracy between the campaign and Russia.
The Justice Department in March settled a separate lawsuit with another figure from the Trump-Russia probe, reaching a roughly $1.2 million settlement with Michael Flynn, the former Trump national security adviser who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his conversations with a top Russian diplomat and was later pardoned.
