A federal judge ruled late Wednesday that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's practice of knocking on doors and asking people about their immigration status and whether they have voted in recent elections likely violates the Voting Rights Act.1
The ruling targeted an operation that had been documented earlier the same day by a CBS News investigation. Homeland Security Investigations has posted photos and videos of its agents approaching homes, and the practice has drawn attention in the weeks before the November midterm elections.1,2,3
The effort traces back to June, when DHS ordered Immigration and Customs Enforcement to specifically target noncitizens who were allegedly voting in elections, according to The New Republic. The department has claimed there could be as many as 250,000 fraudulent voters, although only 156 people have been charged so far.3
The 250,000 figure is widely debated. States have said that lists of noncitizen voters provided to them by the federal government contain inaccuracies.3
Home visits have continued in the meantime. On Monday, DHS announced that it had arrested 11 people in Los Angeles, all of them green card holders. One of those arrested, a 72-year-old Belizean man, said he had never voted and could not remember having registered to vote.3
A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson defended the work in a statement to CBS. "HSI is actively rooting out and investigating election fraud wherever it can be found," the spokesperson said. "Under President Trump, HSI is committed to restoring integrity to our election systems and ensuring that American citizens and only American citizens are electing American leaders."3,1
Critics have objected to the operation on grounds beyond the arrests. Andrea R. Flores, a former Biden immigration adviser, wrote on X: "Once again, this has nothing to do with immigration enforcement. Trump has turned DHS into his own federal police force." She added, "Whether he deploys them to find fraud, harass nonprofits, or question naturalized citizens, he keeps expanding the scope of their duties."3
The ruling's details were not fully available in the accounts reviewed. They do not name the judge or the court, identify the parties who brought the case, or describe the remedy the judge ordered. It is also not clear from the available material whether the finding is preliminary.1
The available reporting does not say how DHS or the Justice Department has responded to the ruling, or whether the department plans to continue the door visits while the case proceeds.1,3
