President Donald Trump speaks about Dulles International Airport modernization in the Oval Office of the White House, Wednesday, July 29, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson).
One day after the Department of Justice argued that New Jersey's admissions about 400 noncitizens illegally voting in prior elections should turn the tide in state voter rolls lawsuits, a federal judge "carefully" smacked the Trump administration down nonetheless.
The DOJ and U.S. District Judge Zaid Quraishi have crossed paths before, with the government criticizing the jurist for "courtroom theatrics" as recently as March. The "theatrics" entailed the judge hauling multiple disqualified DOJ prosecutors in, having told them "you have lost the confidence and the trust of this court."
The judge, weeks after ripping the government's "objectively appalling" serial violations of court orders in habeas corpus cases, demanded to know who was actually running the U.S. Attorney's Office, given that former Donald Trump personal attorney Alina Habba was found to be unlawfully appointed in the top role.
Perhaps it was no surprise, then, that Quraishi on Wednesday extended the DOJ's losing streak in state voter rolls lawsuits to 18, unmoved by the government's last-ditch alerts about "hundreds of federal crimes" in the Garden State.
https://x.com/marceelias/status/2082572987778150898?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
The DOJ on July 21 said that Gov. Mikie Sherrill, a Democrat, handed the feds an "additional basis" for demanding for demanding "unredacted" state voter rolls containing "sensitive information," like driver's licenses and partial Social Security numbers.
Sherrill had stated that "approximately 6,600 self-identified noncitizens were registered to vote in New Jersey between June 2023 and June 2024," and that 400 voted, attributing that to a "serious software error."
On Tuesday, the DOJ sent a letter to the judge, insisting New Jersey could not "simultaneously admit that hundreds of federal crimes have been committed by noncitizen voters" and still resist the Civil Rights Division's Title III demands.
Sherrill did not change her legal position, and the next day, Quraishi "carefully" issued an opinion that was direct on the point that dismissal was required.
"The Court acknowledges these letters from the parties, but whether the DOJ is acting in good faith is not relevant to this Court's analysis and has no bearing on whether Plaintiff is entitled to the information it seeks under 52 U.S.C. § 20703," the judge said in a footnote, emphasizing Sherrill's revelations were "not relevant" to the legal issue at hand.
"[T]his Court therefore joins at least sixteen other district courts including a sister court — and one circuit — in dismissing Plaintiff's claim," Quraishi stated.