WASHINGTON — On January 30, 2026, another key part of the president’s anti-voter executive order attempting to require burdensome registration requirements for military and overseas voters was permanently halted. 

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 secretary of defense from taking any action to implement Section 3(d) of the president's March 25, 2025, executive order. In its opinion, the court further determined that Section 3(d) violated the constitutional separation of powers and cannot be enforced. 

Danielle Lang, vice president for voting rights and the rule of law at Campaign Legal Center, released the following statement:

 “Our democracy works best when all Americans can participate, including members of our military and their families living overseas. Today’s ruling removes a very real threat to the freedom to vote for overseas military families and upholds the separation of powers. It is yet another legal victory affirming what we already know: The president does not have the authority to dictate who can vote or how our elections are run.” 

Read more about how Campaign Legal Center is holding the current administration accountable at this link.

EUGENE, Ore. — On January 26, 2026, a federal judge dismissed the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) lawsuit seeking Oregon’s complete voter rolls, which contain Oregon voters’ private information. States, not the federal government, administer elections, including ensuring their voter rolls are up to date. Campaign Legal Center, alongside the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law and the ACLU, submitted an amicus brief in November 2025 on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Oregon and the ACLU of Oregon arguing that the DOJ’s actions undermine the freedom to vote and voter privacy.

“This is a clear victory for Oregon voters and for the principle that our personal information should not be treated as a federal free-for-all,” said Mark Kendall, president of the League of Women Voters of Oregon. “The court’s decision affirms Oregon’s strong privacy protections and sends an important message: Safeguarding voters’ private data is essential to maintaining trust in our democratic system. The League is proud to stand with Oregonians in defending these rights.”

“This ruling reinforces a fundamental principle for voters everywhere: Our democracy depends on protecting people’s personal information from unnecessary government intrusion,” said Caren Short, director of Legal and Research for the League of Women Voters. “By rejecting this attempt to compel states to hand over sensitive voter data, the court affirmed that voter privacy is not optional and cannot be overridden by federal overreach. The League is involved in several similar cases around the country and will continue to fight to protect voters, their data and our democracy.”

"Protecting the freedom to vote also means protecting voters from unnecessary government intrusion into their private lives,” said Theresa J. Lee, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Voting Rights Project. “Voters participate when they feel safe, respected and protected, and this decision affirms that voter privacy is not negotiable. While the DOJ continues to attack voter privacy, we'll be defending it at every turn."

“This decision is a win for the rule of law, our constitutional structure and, most importantly, Oregonians,” said Brent Ferguson, director of strategic litigation at Campaign Legal Center. “The DOJ should be working to enforce hard-fought voter protections, not trying to abuse its power to force states to hand over the sensitive and personal information of their voters. Recent actions by the DOJ endanger Americans’ freedom to vote and trample on election processes entrusted to the states. This victory affirms the power of Oregon and other states across the country to regulate and administer their own elections without improper overreach by the executive branch.”

“The dismissal of the Justice Department’s case is a victory for Oregon voters’ privacy and for free and fair elections,” said Eileen O’Connor, former attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department and Brennan Center senior counsel. “States administer their elections, not the federal government.”

Our democracy is strongest when every eligible voter can meaningfully exercise their freedom to vote, and Campaign Legal Center, the League of Women Voters of Oregon, ACLU of Oregon, and the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law are working together to protect that freedom.

###

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. 

Washington, D.C. — Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC), on behalf of Michael Feinberg and Justice Connection, filed a brief in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in a case brought by former federal prosecutor Maurene Comey claiming President Donald Trump ordered her dismissal because James Comey, former FBI director, is her father.

Ordering the removal of Comey because of her perceived political beliefs and familial connections, as CLC argues in our brief, is a clear act of unlawful retribution that violates her First Amendment rights and threatens the rights of more than two million civil servants working in the government. Civil servants must be free to hold and express political opinions without fear of reprisal, and political alliance with the president cannot be a requirement for public service.

"President Trump’s relentless attempts to politicize the federal workforce have reached new heights with yet another high-profile dismissal meant to instill fear and compliance across the federal workforce," said Danielle Lang, vice president for voting rights and rule of law at Campaign Legal Center. "Firing an accomplished civil servant for the crime of being related to a political adversary is a gross violation of the First Amendment. It is crucial that the court steps in with expediency and calls this firing what it is — unlawful political retribution."

Comey seeks to have her case heard by a federal court rather than the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), arguing that the MSPB is no longer independent from the president, as it was designed to be, and cannot give her a fair trial. As CLC argues, the federal courts have a duty and responsibility to protect civil servants from gross abuses of executive power.

"No civil servant should be fired because of who they associate with — whether it be their father or a friend," said Stacey Young, executive director and founder of Justice Connection. "Congress recognized nearly 150 years ago that government tasks were too important to be performed by loyalists. The law states that hiring, promotions and terminations should be based on merit — not sycophancy to political leadership."

"Apolitical public servants are a necessary precondition for the rule of law in our nation, and this is particularly true in those agencies which have the power to investigate the citizenry and, at times, charge and convict them of crimes," said Michael Feinberg, former FBI Assistant Special Agent in Charge. "I am hopeful that our judicial system will recognize this in Ms. Comey’s case, and begin to restore a sense of normalcy to our civil service procedures."

The administration is attempting to deprive Comey of her day in court and argue that her case must be adjudicated by the compromised MSPB. The District Court should swiftly rule on this case and uphold First Amendment protections for civil servants as a fundamental principle of nonpartisan, representative government.

Follow the latest updates on this amicus brief via Campaign Legal Center’s case page.

Learn more about presidential overreach and the politicization of the federal workforce here.

###

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.