President Donald Trump speaks during a dinner in the Rose Garden of the White House, Thursday, Sept. 17, 2026, in Washington (AP Photo/Alex Brandon).
The Trump administration says the NAACP is asking for relief it simply cannot have and for documents that do not exist, according to a court filing submitted just before midnight Tuesday in a case about the government's plans to deploy federal election monitors.
Earlier this month, the storied civil rights organization filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit hoping to convince U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan, a Joe Biden appointee, that time was of the essence. The lawsuit asks the court to order the Department of Justice to reveal its monitoring plans on an expedited basis due to the 2026 midterm elections being less than a month away.
Now, in a 35-page motion in opposition, the DOJ accuses the NAACP of trying to game the system by asking for too much, too late.
In the underlying lawsuit, the NAACP points to an extensive FOIA request submitted in September and says the DOJ failed to respond within the statutory timeline and did not provide "the required determination of what documents it intends to produce or withhold."
"Judicial intervention in this FOIA request is clearly proper, which is the substance of this complaint," the NAACP argues. "[T]he information sought in the FOIA request involves the fundamental right to vote, and potential interference and suppression of that right by the Defendant's oft toted and eerily vague and undisclosed plans to completely shift its historic Election Day work."
The DOJ says the NAACP's "request, actions, and filings belie" an "invocation" of urgency "and warrant denial of the motion."
As for those claimed actions, the NAACP was not initially concerned with speed when asking for the documents, the government says.
"Plaintiff did not seek expedited processing when it submitted its FOIA request on September 1, 2026, or even describe a compelling need for the records requested," the opposition motion reads. "Plaintiff cannot plausibly contend that this Court must order expedited processing, having not previously sought the relief it now demands for the first time through litigation."
The government's motion goes on to argue that even if the FOIA request is set on an expedited track, that relief will not necessarily get the NAACP the documents it wants in time for the election.
To hear the government tell it, expedited processing "requires only that an agency process records 'as soon as practical'" but not "the immediate production of all records requested."
The government adds that moving quickly on the NAACP's request will still be relatively slow due to the complexity of the ask.
"On their face, those [20] categories [of documents in the request] implicate various FOIA exemptions that will necessitate consultation with several other agencies," the opposition motion goes on.
The DOJ says time is not the only issue working against the NAACP.
"[T]he categories demand the creation of records that do not exist," the Trump administration claims. "In short, FOIA does not provide a basis for the relief Plaintiff seeks from this Court."
The motion elaborates on this point:
Here, certain parts of Plaintiff's request appear to call on [DOJ] to create records in response. Other parts appear designed to require [DOJ] to "conduct research" by "answering questions disguised as a FOIA request." For both, Plaintiff cannot claim an injury, let alone an irreparable one; no injury may accrue where a plaintiff requests records that do not yet exist.
The government also aims to turn the tables on the temporal argument by accusing the NAACP of acting too slowly.
"Plaintiff also states that it fully knew of DOJ's election monitoring efforts fifty days prior to filing this action and the accompanying motion—as confirmed by extensive public reporting on DOJ's election monitoring," the motion continues. "Plaintiff has not justified its delay in submitting its FOIA request or seeking injunctive relief from this Court."
Finally, the government insists the NAACP is wrong on the merits.
"Plaintiff's motion expresses concern over potential impingement of the right to vote but wholly fails to state or explain how the relief requested will 'actually prevent' such harm," the motion goes on. "So alleged, Plaintiff's request merely relies on the imminence of the event (Election Day) and the importance of the right implicated (voting) to assert an emergency. But that is not enough."