Defending Civic Engagement Groups Against Restrictions on Voter Registration at Naturalization Ceremonies (League of Women Voters of the United States et al. v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services et al.)

At a Glance

Campaign Legal Center represents the League of Women Voters, League of Women Voters of Colorado, League of Women Voters of New Jersey, League of Women Voters of Saratoga County, League of Women Voters of the Charleston Area, and League of Women Voters of Milwaukee County in challenging a new federal policy that prevents civic engagement groups from providing voter registration services to new citizens after administrative naturalization ceremonies.

Status
Active
Updated
Issues
Voting and Elections
About This Case/Action

On August 29, 2025, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) abruptly announced that it would no longer allow third-party nonpartisan, nongovernmental organizations to assist new citizens in registering to vote after administrative naturalization ceremonies. The new policy allows only state or local election officials, or USCIS officers as a fallback, to provide voter registration services after these ceremonies.  

Within months, USCIS’s restrictive policy forced the League of Women Voters (LWV or the League) and state and local Leagues across the country to cancel planned voter registration activities at administrative naturalization ceremonies, where League members and volunteers expected to help roughly 10,000 individuals register to vote.  

USCIS’s policy is burdening the League’s effective voter registration and engagement work and, in turn, reducing voter registration access for thousands of new American citizens.

CLC represents the national League of Women Voters, LWV Colorado, LWV New Jersey, and three local Leagues, LWV of Saratoga County, LWV of the Charleston Area, and LWV of Milwaukee in challenging the new USCIS policy, arguing it violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

The First Amendment protects the right to political speech and participation in the political process for both individuals and organizations. USCIS’s new policy is in direct violation of the First Amendment because it is an attack on both of these constitutionally protected rights.  

Additionally, the Administrative Procedure Act requires federal agencies, including USCIS, to engage in a defined process before enacting new rules and prohibits agencies from enacting rules that are “arbitrary and capricious.” USCIS did not engage in the required process before enactment, and its new policy inflicts unreasonable and unnecessary restrictions on civic engagement groups like the League. 

The Impact  

The League of Women Voters and its state and local affiliates around the country have provided voter registration and education services at naturalization ceremonies across the country since long before USCIS’s inception in 2003.

For decades, Leagues nationwide have served as reliable, nonpartisan resources helping new citizens access the ballot box. This is especially true in areas where state or local election officials lack the capacity to attend administrative naturalization ceremonies to provide voter registration services themselves.

At administrative naturalization ceremonies, League members and volunteers have helped hundreds of thousands of new citizens register to vote, ensuring that new Americans are not only welcomed as citizens but empowered to participate in our democracy.

In 2024 alone, state and local Leagues across the country held 2,789 events at or near naturalization ceremonies, with members and volunteers assisting a total of 122,141 newly naturalized citizens — roughly 8 percent of all new citizens that year — in registering to vote.

But USCIS’s restrictive new policy prohibits the League, and other civic engagement groups, from helping new citizens register to vote after administrative naturalization ceremonies.  

The policy will make it harder for new citizens to register to vote, denying access at the outset to one of the most precious rights accompanying their new American citizenship.  

Our democracy is strongest when every voter can participate easily and without barriers. Nonpartisan civic engagement groups fill a critical public need by facilitating that participation. These civic-minded organizations and their members and volunteers who help new Americans register to vote should be supported and celebrated, not targeted and punished. 

Campaign Legal Center Files SCOTUS Brief in Support of Independent Agencies

Date
Body

Washington, D.C. — Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC), joined by CLC president and former Republican chairman of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) Trevor Potter, filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in Trump v. Slaughter. The Supreme Court is set to consider whether removal protections for officials of independent agencies violate constitutional separation of powers principles. While the Trump administration in this case is specifically defending its illegal dismissal of Rebecca Slaughter, former commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission, the Supreme Court’s decision could upend nearly 100 years of legal precedent approving independent multimember agencies — opening the door to presidential control of some of the very independent agencies that regulate him, including those overseeing elections. 

Trevor Potter, who also is president of Campaign Legal Center, issued the following statement: 

“The president of the United States is also a partisan political figure who leads one of the two major political parties, campaigns for party candidates, raises money for party committees, and is often a candidate for reelection. They should therefore never have direct control over the independent agencies that regulate federal elections. 

"As Campaign Legal Center and I argue in the brief we’ve filed with the Supreme Court, authorizing the president to control the nation’s election agencies would expose the regulation of election activities to partisan manipulation, undermining the integrity of our democratic system and the rule of law. 

"We are therefore urging the justices to preserve the long-standing legal precedent that insulates agencies like the Federal Election Commission and the Election Assistance Commission from presidential control. Challenging the limits of presidential power over independent agencies is simply the latest move in Trump’s campaign to erode the separation of powers that keeps a president from becoming a dictator. The consequences of a broad overhaul by the Supreme Court of precedent and law limiting the president's authority over election agencies would be disastrous for democratic accountability.” 

 

### 

Campaign Legal Center is a nonpartisan legal organization dedicated to solving the wide range of challenges facing American democracy. Founded in 2002, CLC fights for every American’s freedom to vote and participate meaningfully in the democratic process. 

Learn more about CLC. Don't miss out on our latest resources: Subscribe to President Trevor Potter's newsletter on LinkedIn or email, tune in to the latest season of our award-winning podcast, Democracy Decoded, and join our livestreamed events.

Issues
Voting and Elections
Ethics

Protecting America’s Independent Agencies from Presidential Overreach (Trump v. Slaughter)

At a Glance

President Donald Trump does not have absolute authority over the composition and operations of independent agencies, despite what he has claimed. Campaign Legal Center filed an amicus brief arguing that the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and Election Assistance Commission (EAC), two such agencies, must remain independent to ensure free and fair elections. 

Status
Active
Updated
Issues
Voting and Elections
Campaign Finance
About This Case/Action

Independent agencies provide important services to the American people, including making sure our elections are safe, secure and accurate. Congress and past presidents have agreed that insulation from the president is sometimes necessary to ensure that agencies prioritize their mission, rather than catering to the political whims of the president.  

Independent agencies are designed by Congress to operate outside of the president’s direct control, which is typically achieved through tenure protections for agency leaders so that the president cannot fire them merely for a policy disagreement.  

In March 2025, President Trump fired both Democratic commissioners at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), an independent agency. This firing was just one part of the Administration’s effort to dismantle the independence of agencies that Congress carefully designed. For example, President Trump: 

  • Issued an executive order that would grant the President broad powers to oversee the regulations and proceedings of independent agencies;
  • Issued an executive order that unlawfully attempts to direct the EAC to make changes to voter registration requirements for federal elections;
  • Illegally fired agency heads of other independent agencies, just because they are not political loyalists. For example, President Trump removed Ellen Weintraub from her position as Chair of the FEC. 

Independent agencies are meant to function autonomously to carry out federal laws and serve the American people, not the president’s political interests. But President Trump’s actions threaten this important and long-standing framework.

The commissioners at the FTC sued the president because their firing violated the tenure protection that Congress had provided. The U.S. Supreme Court is now deciding whether the president’s firing of the commissioners was lawful. Campaign Legal Center (CLC), alongside Trevor Potter, CLC’s president and former Republican chair of the FEC, filed an amicus brief explaining the importance of independence for federal election agencies. Drawing on Potter’s experience at the FEC and CLC’s long history of practicing before the FEC and EAC, CLC’s brief demonstrates that independence is especially critical when the president’s past campaigns and future election activities are subject to the FEC and EAC’s oversight.

The FEC is the only agency that regulates money in federal elections, including elections for president. Although commissioners are appointed by the president, Congress purposefully did not give the president the power to fire FEC commissioners to protect the FEC’s authority to regulate the executive branch on campaign finance matters. In fact, the FEC was created in response to Watergate, in part because of the problem of presidential interference in the enforcement of campaign finance laws.

The EAC is the agency responsible for maintaining the federal voter registration form and helping states guarantee that elections are safe, secure and accessible. Like the FEC, the EAC was designed by Congress to be independent so that no president could put a thumb on the scale to favor their own campaign or political party.

In our brief, CLC and Potter argue that agency independence advances democratic values, such as the consideration of opposing views and enhanced transparency. CLC and Potter also warn about the experience of authoritarianism abroad, where leaders have used control over election agencies to consolidate and entrench their own power.  

Congress designed both the FEC and EAC to be bipartisan, expert, and impartial. Allowing the president to fire anyone at these agencies that he disagrees with would undermine our nation’s system of checks and balances and threaten the integrity of our elections.

Campaign Legal Center and Trevor Potter urge the Supreme Court to rule that the president cannot fire independent agency leaders, including leaders at the FEC and EAC, just because they are not political loyalists. This ruling will have massive implications for the control that the president can exert over more than two dozen independent agencies. 
 

Campaign Legal Center Calls for Ethics Investigation of Senators Behind Legislation Allowing Them to Sue Government for Potential Millions

Date
Body

Washington, D.C. — Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed a complaint with the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics concerning senators who may have been involved in inserting personally beneficial legislation in the fiscal year 2025 funding bill, violating Senate conflict of interest rules. The provision inserted by senators at the last minute would allow eight lawmakers who had their phone records seized by the FBI to receive mandatory minimum damages of $500,000 per violation. 

Since this provision has come to light, there has been bipartisan outrage across the newly re-opened Congress, as well as legislative action in the House of Representatives to repeal the measure. 

Kedric Payne, vice president, general counsel and senior director of ethics at Campaign Legal Center, issued the following statement: 

“Elected officials are expected to use their power to support legislation that serves the public, not their own personal financial interests. If a group of senators use an emergency funding bill ending the longest government shutdown in U.S. history to unexpectedly create a personal benefit potentially worth millions of dollars for a limited group, they enrich themselves and damage the public’s trust. The Senate Ethics Committee must determine whether these senators who created and aided the passage of these provisions violated Senate rules.”

Issues
Ethics

VICTORY: Utah to Implement a Fair Congressional Map

Date
Body

Salt Lake City, Utah — In a win for Utahns, the state’s Third District Court ruled yesterday that a fair congressional map will be implemented for the 2026 midterm elections. This decision follows years of litigation and repeated attempts by the Utah state legislature to impose a gerrymandered map on voters. 

Utah will now be using a map that plaintiffs, represented by Campaign Legal Center, submitted for consideration after the legislature passed yet another illegally gerrymandered map. Today’s decision follows a series of rulings by Utah state courts that have repeatedly affirmed the right of Utahns to meaningfully influence their government. 

Campaign Legal Center, on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Utah (LWV Utah), Mormon Women for Ethical Government (MWEG) and individual Utah voters, initially challenged the Utah state legislature’s repeal of Proposition 4, or Prop 4 – a ballot initiative passed by Utah voters in 2018 that prohibits partisan gerrymandering by establishing the Utah Independent Redistricting Commission and creating fair, neutral criteria and procedures for adopting district maps.  

In an August 25 ruling, the District Court found that the legislature’s repeal of Prop 4 violated the people’s right under the Utah constitution to alter and reform their government, reviving Prop 4 and striking down the gerrymandered 2021 congressional map. The legislature was given a chance to pass a map that complied with Prop 4, but the legislature passed a new gerrymandered map instead. That new map was drawn with partisan data, is an extreme partisan outlier, and fails to follow Prop 4’s neutral criteria. 

Today’s ruling strikes down that illegal map and implements a fair map for future Utah elections. 

“The League of Women Voters is both pleased and relieved that years of advocating for our voters resulted in a fair map,” said Katharine Biele, president of the League of Women Voters of Utah. “We hope this sends a message to our legislators that the voices of their constituents’ matters and we are confident that voters will continue to see Prop 4 as a law that will preserve their constitutional rights.” 

“Today, we see that, when people come together across party and ideological lines, we can exercise great political power – Not partisan power to control or win at all costs, but principled power that values the opinions of our neighbors and desires systems and processes that encourage healthy disagreement and debate,” said Emma Petty Addams, co-executive director of Mormon Women for Ethical Government. “Such principled power is the pathway to representation. When we the people are represented fairly, we have an increased sense of agency and civic empowerment. This is good for everyone in Utah.” 

“Utahns have continued to fight for their right to fair maps and representation despite the obstacles state lawmakers, afraid of being held accountable by voters using fair maps, have repeatedly tried to put in their way,” said Mark Gaber, senior redistricting director for Campaign Legal Center. “Utah’s courts have made it clear: Elections should be determined by the voters, not politicians who can manipulate voting maps.”

Today’s decision also blocked implementation of S.B. 1011, a law passed by the legislature to mandate the use of biased statistical tests to evaluate voting maps that would have virtually guaranteed a partisan gerrymander, directly undercutting Prop 4.

Campaign Legal Center also successfully defeated an effort to repeal Prop 4 for a second time via an “indirect initiative,” which would have violated the Utah state constitution. 

With these decisive legal victories for Utah voters, Campaign Legal Center will now work to ensure the promise of fair maps for Utahns is realized.
                                                                 

###

The nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center advances democracy through law. We safeguard the freedom to vote, defend voters’ right to know who is spending money to influence elections, and work to ensure public trust in our elected officials. 

Learn more about CLC. Don't miss out on our latest resources: Subscribe to President Trevor Potter's newsletter on LinkedIn or email, tune in to the latest season of our award-winning podcast, Democracy Decoded, and join our livestreamed events.

Issues
Redistricting

Challenging the Consolidation and Distribution of Federal Citizenship Data for Voter Purges (League of Women Voters v. US Dept. of Homeland Sec.)

At a Glance

The League of Women Voters is challenging the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)’s consolidation and distribution of flawed federal citizenship data to states and other federal agencies under the Privacy Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the U.S. Constitution. Campaign Legal Center submitted an amicus brief urging the court to block this program. 

Status
Active
Updated
Issues
Voting and Elections
About This Case/Action

Historically, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has maintained a database on immigrants that tracks their immigration status and citizenship status called “SAVE.” The original purpose of the SAVE database was to provide government agencies with a resource to check whether individuals were eligible for government benefits based on their immigration or citizenship status.  

In recent years, a handful of states have used SAVE as part of their voter registration system. SAVE can be used to attempt to confirm the citizenship status of an individual either at the time they apply to register or after they have been added to the state’s voter registration list.  

Because the SAVE system only contained information regarding immigrants, it could not be used to confirm the citizenship status of U.S.-born citizens.  

The information SAVE has about individuals is often outdated, meaning that people could be categorized as noncitizens in SAVE even long after they have become a naturalized citizen and eligible to vote.  

Now, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) — which oversees USCIS — has entered into an agreement with the Social Security Administration (SSA) to incorporate SSA’s data into the SAVE system, data that includes U.S.-born citizens. As a result, many government agencies will be able to access this combined database of all Americans.  

This newly incorporated SSA data is notoriously unreliable. SSA is not entrusted with making citizenship determinations or formally tracking citizenship status. Incorporating unreliable citizenship data could result in citizens erroneously having their voter registration application denied or erroneously being purged from voter registration lists.    

On September 30, 2025, a group of plaintiffs led by the League of Women Voters filed suit in federal court challenging the legality of DHS’s data consolidation efforts. The suit claims that DHS’s centralization of data on Americans violates the Privacy Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the separation of powers required by the Constitution.

Campaign Legal Center submitted an amicus brief highlighting the separation-of-powers concerns implicated by DHS’s intervention in verifying voter eligibility.

Only Congress and the states have the power to set rules about our elections, not the president. This attempt to consolidate private and sensitive data by DHS is part of a larger effort to shift election administration functions into the executive branch.

Voter purges, or efforts to remove a significant number of voters from the registration rolls all at once, ultimately threaten Americans’ freedom to vote and tend to disproportionately target people with past felony convictions, voters of color, low-income voters and young voters.    

Associated Cases & Actions

Challenging the Trump Administration’s Unlawful Voter Data Collection

VICTORY: Groups Successfully Strike Down Provision of Anti-Voter Executive Order

Date
Body

Washington, DC — On Friday, Oct. 31, a key part of an anti-voter executive order was permanently halted following successful, early action by a coalition of nonprofit groups to stop this unlawful power grab by the president, protect the freedom to vote and safeguard our system of checks and balances. 

The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), Secure Families Initiative (SFI) and Arizona Students’ Association (ASA) — represented by Campaign Legal Center (CLC) and Democracy Defenders Fund (DDF) — sought to prevent the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) from taking any action to implement Section 2(a) of the president's March 25, 2025, executive order. In its opinion, the court held that Section 2(a) is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers. 

A judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted our motion for summary judgment and issued an injunction that permanently halts the EAC from implementing Section 2(a) of the president’s order, which ordered the EAC to add a documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC) requirement to the National Mail Voter Registration Form. 

"This is not just a victory for LULAC, but for every eligible voter," said Juan Proaño, LULAC Chief Executive Officer. "The Court sent a clear and powerful message: no president can unilaterally rewrite election law to suppress the vote. This ruling safeguards the voices of millions who depend on the integrity of our democratic system." 

“Efforts to silence the voices and votes of the American electorate must not stand,” said Roman Palomares, LULAC National President. “Our democracy depends on every voter’s confidence that they can cast their ballot freely and have it counted accurately.” 

“The Constitution is clear: Only the states and Congress have the power to regulate our elections, not the president,” said Bruce Spiva, senior vice president at Campaign Legal Center. “Maintaining — and enforcing — this separation of powers is critical. With the 2026 midterm elections only a year away, now more than ever, we must safeguard the freedom to vote for all Americans.” 

"This is a historic victory for active-duty military families, " said Brandi Jones, Acting-Co Director of Secure Families Initiative, “Generations of people throughout American history have fought to establish the right to vote for every American. Black Americans, Indigenous Americans, communities of color, and women have taken on this fight facing violence and at times death. We are proud to follow their footsteps.” 

“This ruling is a resounding victory for democracy and the rule of law,” said Amb. Norm Eisen (ret.), co-founder and executive chair of the Democracy Defenders Fund. “No president can trample the Constitution to impose burdensome restrictions that make it harder for Americans to vote—ID requirements would disproportionately impact certain citizens, such as those who cannot afford to meet them. Today’s decision reaffirms that Congress and the States run elections and that the president does not have the authority to manipulate our election systems for his benefit and his liking.” 

“This is a huge victory to protect student voting rights. DPOC requirements in AZ are already burdensome. This executive overreach of our elections would have made it even more difficult for voters to access the ballot,” said Kyle Nitschke, Co-Executive Director of the Arizona Students’ Association. 

Keep up with our action against the administration’s unlawful executive order at this link. Read more about how Campaign Legal Center is holding the current administration accountable at this link. 
 

###

The nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center advances democracy through law. We safeguard the freedom to vote, defend voters’ right to know who is spending money to influence elections, and work to ensure public trust in our elected officials.
 
Learn more about CLC. Don't miss out on our latest resources: Subscribe to President Trevor Potter's newsletter on LinkedIn or email, tune in to the latest season of our award-winning podcast, Democracy Decoded, and join our livestreamed events.

Issues
Voting and Elections
Subscribe to