“Zero Evidence”: How Judges and Grand Juries Have Rejected the Trump Administration Efforts to Investigate and Prosecute

The second Trump administration has tried to use the federal government’s broad power to investigate alleged violations of law and gather evidence against a wide range of people, institutions, and activities. The administration’s targets have included perceived political opponents and critics, journalists, as well as public institutions (e.g., an election office) and private institutions (e.g., hospitals). What stands out is not simply how the administration has aggressively tried to use these powers in novel ways against those targets. It is also that courts and grand juries have repeatedly refused and rejected the administration in their attempts to do so. Below we document, in detail, the actions of the courts and grand juries that have blocked these efforts, which includes search warrants, grand jury subpoenas, administrative subpoenas, and criminal indictments. The Tables are organized by the type of government action and the subject matter at issue. These cases include federal judges finding that government action was “pretextual,” “retaliatory,” “vindictive,” or “abuse of prosecuting power.” They also include instances where grand juries have rejected the government’s actions (without public explanations for their decisions). The total number of cases is extraordinary and also under-inclusive; it reflects only what is publicly known. Similar court and grand jury actions may never be disclosed. But what is clear is that judges across the ideological spectrum, including those appointed by President Donald Trump, and cross-sections of jurors have often been unwilling to allow the administration to use such tools – a remarkable development in the life of the rule of law in the United States. Key statistics: - In at least 18 publicly reported instances, grand juries have refused to indict (“no bills”). A no bill is almost unheard of for most career federal prosecutors. - Courts have blocked or prosecutors have withdrawn at least 16 grand jury subpoenas — including two to hospitals providing gender-affirming care and 12 to perceived political opponents or opponents to Trump administration policies. - Nearly half of the cases nationwide brought against protesters and immigrants for assault against a law enforcement officer were dismissed by judges, withdrawn by prosecutors, or resulted in jury acquittals (see New York Times analysis). - Federal courts have dismissed 16 DOJ lawsuits seeking state voter data — including seven rejections by Trump-appointed judges. The DOJ has sued 30 states and D.C. to obtain voter data and has not won in any case to date. - DHS has withdrawn at least seven requests to technology companies to identify ICE critics after the requests were challenged under the First Amendment. Federal courts have blocked at least three FTC demands for information, calling them likely unconstitutional retaliation against the recipients. - Federal judges have dismissed, or prosecutors have withdrawn, thousands of misdemeanor charges against migrants crossing into “National Defense Areas” (see ProPublica and Texas Tribune analysis). - Courts have blocked or quashed nine administrative subpoenas to hospitals seeking patient-identifying information related to gender-affirming care. - Judges have dismissed or prosecutors have dropped at least 79 cases relating to ICE protests or federal law enforcement surges across D.C., Chicago, Minnesota, and Los Angeles. According to one judge, in a period of two months, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in D.C. dropped more cases than it had in the previous 10 years combined. I. Challenges to Pre-Trial Criminal Investigative Tools and Indictments Federal judges have rejected the Trump administration’s use of tools in criminal investigations — grand jury subpoenas, administrative subpoenas, search warrants, and arrest warrants — a highly unusual repudiation especially given the low evidentiary standard that the government needs to satisfy. Similarly, grand juries, which are also typically highly deferential to federal prosecutors, have in an unusually high number of instances rejected indictments brought under the second Trump administration. The government has dropped or dismissed thousands of misdemeanor charges against migrants for crossing into “National Defense Areas” after federal judges repeatedly ruled that the government failed to establish that defendants had the requisite mens rea for a charge to be brought. The courts have also taken other adverse actions against the government including the unusual step of granting a motion to dismiss an indictment on the basis of vindictive prosecution, and courts have found that the Trump administration illegally appointed U.S. Attorneys in California, Nevada, New York, New Jersey, and Virginia, impairing the ability of those offices to bring criminal cases. These adverse actions by the courts and grand juries include a high percentage of cases brought against protesters and perceived political opponents of the Trump administration. But courts have also rejected government efforts based on prosecutorial misconduct in grand jury proceedings and incompetence in complying with proper procedure. As many of these proceedings are often sealed, the total number of times search warrants, arrest warrants, grand jury subpoenas, and indictments have been rejected by courts and grand juries is not publicly known. Grand Jury Subpoenas Federal prosecutors rely heavily on grand jury subpoenas in criminal investigations. Subpoenas are issued under the authority of a grand jury — a group of 16-23 U.S. citizens who can receive the testimony and documents of subpoenaed individuals in secret proceedings. Federal prosecutors have wide discretion in issuing grand jury subpoenas because they do not need to show probable cause. Non-compliance with a grand jury subpoena can result in civil and criminal penalties. A subpoenaed party, or a third party with a privilege or cognizable interest in the material subpoenaed, can move to quash a grand jury subpoena before a district court. Per the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a judge can also quash a subpoena “if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive.” As the Supreme Court established in R. Enterprises (1991), grand jury subpoenas are presumed reasonable, and anyone who moves to quash faces the onerous burden of proving there is “no reasonable possibility” that the materials subpoenaed are relevant to an investigation. That is why the publicly-known amount of grand jury subpoenas quashed under the second Trump administration — at least 16 — is so striking. Grand Jury Indictments Under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the federal government cannot try someone for a felony unless a grand jury issues an indictment (a formal finding that there is enough evidence to move to trial) or the defendant waives the requirement. Since a grand jury is used only in the early stages of a case, the standard for a prosecutor to convince a grand jury to indict is fairly low — only 12 members of the grand jury need to find probable cause for a felony. If the grand jury reviews the evidence and votes not to indict (a “no bill”), the government can not move forward with a trial on felony charges (unless the government were to make the unusual move of succeeding with another grand jury). Securing an indictment from a grand jury has historically been an easy bar to clear for the overwhelming majority of prosecutions, leading to the popularity of New York Court of Appeals Chief Judge Sol Wachtler’s adage, “[a]ny good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.” In 2016, the last time the DOJ publicly reported these figures, the DOJ noted only 6 instances of a grand jury returning a no bill in more than 150,000 criminal matters (or roughly 0.004%). Against that backdrop, the 18 publicly known instances of grand juries refusing to indict are even more striking (see Table). Due to the remarkable rate of grand jury no bills, some federal courts have proposed or provisionally adopted rules requiring the federal government to notify judges every time a grand jury refuses to indict an individual. The District of Columbia and the Northern District of Illinois have adopted such requirements, and the District of Massachusetts has proposed doing the same. Gender-Affirming Care Administrative Subpoenas for “Fraud” and “False Statements” The DOJ has publicly announced issuing more than 20 administrative subpoenas to medical institutions under 18 U.S.C. § 3486 to apparently criminally investigate “healthcare fraud” and “false statements” concerning “transgender medical procedures for children.” The DOJ’s “demands” included information “sufficient to identify patients” receiving gender-affirming care, patient intake records, communications with pharmaceutical manufacturers of puberty blockers, and hospital personnel files. Under the Supreme Court’s Powell test, federal courts assess administrative subpoenas for “reasonableness” and “good faith” by determining if the investigation serves a legitimate purpose and if the requested materials are relevant to that end. This is a less stringent standard than the Fourth Amendment probable cause test courts apply, for example, for search warrants. According to a 2002 report by the DOJ to Congress on the use of administrative subpoenas, federal prosecutors are internally instructed to rely on these factors in determining whether a subpoena should be issued, and for this reason, courts have been historically deferential to the government’s requests. In assessing recent challenges to these subpoenas, courts have compared the Trump administration’s public statements concerning ending gender-affirming care against representations made by the DOJ about the purpose of the government’s investigations. With one exception, no federal court has ruled in favor of the government in these cases. (In the exception, a federal court in Northern Texas found the subpoena of a Rhode Island hospital valid and required the hospital to submit anonymized information to the court in camera while the case is on appeal.) Federal prosecutors appear to have recently escalated their efforts to obtain information from hospitals with grand jury subpoenas, and it is not publicly known how many such subpoenas have been issued. | Case Name | Category | Tool / Type | Overview | Key Quotes | Group | |---|---|---|---|---|---| Grand Jury Subpoenas to the Office of the New York State Attorney General Docket: 1:25-mc-00019 District Court Opinion and Order N.D.N.Y. — Senior Judge Lorna G. Schofield (Obama) (sitting by designation) | Political Opponents & Officials | Grand Jury Subpoena | On August 5, 2025, John Sarcone, purporting to serve as Acting U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of New York, personally directed two grand jury subpoenas to the office of New York Attorney General Letitia James to investigate the State of New York’s two civil enforcement cases against President Trump and the National Rifle Association, and demanding all records relating to those cases, returnable to Sarcone personally. The State moved to quash on August 19, 2025, arguing the subpoenas intruded on state sovereignty and were retaliation for its suits against the President and his allies. On January 8, 2026, Judge Schofield granted the motion to quash on a threshold ground without reaching the federalism or retaliation arguments. The court found Sarcone was not lawfully serving as Acting U.S. Attorney when the subpoenas were served so the subpoenas he directed were invalid. The court quashed both subpoenas and disqualified Sarcone from further involvement in the case. | “The subpoenas here were issued through an official acting without lawful authority. The subpoenas therefore lacked the regularity required for a presumption of reasonableness. Three weeks after Mr. Sarcone claimed the title of Acting U.S. Attorney, he used that authority to subpoena a state law-enforcement office that the President had publicly cast as a political adversary.” (Court Opinion) “The problem is not a lack of subpoena power in the abstract; it is the Federal Government's choice to invoke that power through a statutory end-run and then leverage that power against a perceived rival of the President.” (Court Opinion) | Grand Jury Subpoena | Grand Jury Subpoenas to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System Docket: 1:26-mc-00012 District Court Opinion D.D.C. — Chief Judge James E. Boasberg (Obama) | Political Opponents & Officials | Grand Jury Subpoena | In early 2026, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia opened a grand jury investigation into Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and served two grand jury subpoenas on the Board of Governors — one seeking records about the years-long renovation of the Board’s buildings, the other records related to Powell’s Senate Banking Committee testimony that had briefly touched on those renovations. The Board moved to quash, contending the subpoenas were a pretext to pressure Powell into lowering interest rates or resigning. On March 11, 2026, Chief Judge Boasberg granted the motion to quash, holding that the subpoenas’ dominant purpose was improper and pretextual, designed to harass and pressure Powell in service of the President’s demand for lower rates and his stated wish to remove him. | “There is abundant evidence that the subpoenas’ dominant (if not sole) purpose is to harass and pressure Powell either to yield to the President or to resign and make way for a Fed Chair who will. On the other side of the scale, the Government has offered no evidence whatsoever that Powell committed any crime other than displeasing the President. The Court must thus conclude that the asserted justifications for these subpoenas are mere pretexts.” (Court Opinion) “A mountain of evidence suggests that the Government served these subpoenas on the Board to pressure its Chair into voting for lower interest rates or resigning. On the other side of the scale, the Government has produced essentially zero evidence to suspect Chair Powell of a crime; indeed, its justifications are so thin and unsubstantiated that the Court can only conclude that they are pretextual. The Court therefore finds that the subpoenas were issued for an improper purpose and will quash them.” (Court Opinion) | Grand Jury Subpoena | Grand Jury Subpoenas to Minnesota State Officials Docket: 0:26-mc-00043 District Court Order D. Minn. — Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz (Bush) | Political Opponents & Officials | Grand Jury Subpoena | On June 17, 2026, Judge Schiltz quashed six grand jury subpoenas issued to Minnesota officials, including Gov. Tim Walz, Attorney General Keith Ellison, Mayor Jacob Frey of Minneapolis, by federal prosecutors demanding records relating to state cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, including all related communications, presentations, training manuals, and guides. Judge Schiltz relied on public statements by President Trump and senior Trump administration officials to determine the subpoenas were retributive. Judge Schiltz also noted the DOJ’s stated purpose of forcing cooperation with immigration authorities violated the anti-commandeering doctrine. | “Initiating a criminal investigation in order to harass political opponents or to coerce them into taking official action-particularly official action that the federal government cannot directly require those political opponents to take-is a blatantly unlawful and unethical use [of] the grand-jury process … The only question, then, is whether the challenged subpoenas were issued for one of these forbidden purposes. The Court has no doubt that they were.” (Court Opinion) “…the Department's asserted investigatory purpose for the challenged subpoenas is risible.” (Court Opinion) “And, of course, this campaign played out against the backdrop of the Trump administration's well-established history of using criminal investigations to retaliate against and pressure the President's political and personal adversaries.” (Court Opinion) “... the public has a very strong interest in learning of this abuse of the grand-jury process by the Department.”(Court Opinion) “The fact that connections between the information sought in the subpoenas and any possible criminal violation range from extremely weak to nonexistent only adds to the overwhelming evidence that these subpoenas were not issued to investigate, but to harass, coerce, and retaliate.” (Court Opinion) | Grand Jury Subpoena | Grand Jury Subpoenas to Washington Post and Wall Street Journal Journalists E.D. Va. | Journalists & News Organizations | Grand Jury Subpoena | According to public reporting, in June 2026, the DOJ issued and then withdrew grand jury subpoenas to reporters at the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal after the news outlets contested the subpoenas. The subpoenas, reportedly pushed by Trump himself, were aimed at journalists offering critical coverage of the Iran War and allegedly sought “documents related to the paper’s coverage of the conflict in Iran.” | Grand Jury Subpoena | | Coe v. Blanche Docket: 1:26-cv-04641 District Court Order (June 24, 2026) District Court Order (July 6, 2026) S.D.N.Y. — Judge Katherine P. Failla (Obama) | Gender-Affirming Care | Grand Jury Subpoena | On May 7, 2026, NYU Langone Hospitals was among several New York City institutions served with a grand jury subpoena issued by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Texas demanding the identifying and detailed sensitive health information of every patient who received gender-affirming care as a minor from January 2020 through May 2026, along with their parents’ identities. NYU disclosed the subpoena under New York’s Shield Law, and affected patients and parents sued in the Southern District of New York, moving for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and provisional class certification for gender-affirming care patients across New York City. On June 24, 2026, Judge Failla granted the TRO and provisionally certified a class of NYC minor gender-affirming care patients (and an NYU subclass), and on July 6, 2026 she entered a preliminary injunction on the same reasoning. The injunction bars the DOJ from pursuing the information through these or substantially similar administrative or grand jury subpoenas. The DOJ appealed the injunction to the Second Circuit. | “But, more fundamentally, this Court will not blind itself to reality. And, in this case, reality is the timeline of DOJ’s efforts and, in particular, its efforts to recast discredited civil administrative subpoenas as grand jury subpoenas from a hand-picked faraway jurisdiction in order to minimize judicial review of constitutional infirmities.” (Bench Transcript) “The subpoena, expressly targeting members of a particular and uniquely vulnerable group, both shocks the conscience and rises to the level of the most egregious official conduct under the O’Connor case.” (Bench Transcript) | Grand Jury Subpoena | Grand Jury Subpoenas in Investigation of Former CIA Director John Brennan D.D.C. | Political Opponents & Officials | Grand Jury Subpoena | In June 2026, the Justice Department reportedly withdrew “a small handful of subpoenas”* issued to potential witnesses in the investigation of former CIA Director John Brennan. Brennan is purportedly being investigated for his role in the Obama administration’s assessment about Russia’s involvement in the 2016 election and statements made to Congress. [Authors’ note: we count these actions as at least two grand jury subpoenas withdrawn.] | Grand Jury Subpoena | | Z.A. v. Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital Docket: 5:26-cv-04998 District Court Order N.D. Cal. — Judge Patrick C. Pitts (Biden) | Gender-Affirming Care | Grand Jury Subpoena | In July 2025, the DOJ served Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford with a § 3486 administrative subpoena for the records of minors who received gender-affirming care; Packard produced non-patient records and spent nine months negotiating over anonymizing the patient data. On May 6, 2026, the DOJ withdrew its administrative subpoena and the next day served a grand jury subpoena of nearly identical scope — issued under seal of the Northern District of Texas — demanding documents identifying every minor who received such care from January 2020 to May 2026, the diagnoses and assessments behind it, and their informed-consent and parental-authorization records. Patients and parents sued in the Northern District of California and, hours before the subpoena’s return date, moved for a temporary restraining order and provisional class certification. On July 2, 2026, Judge Pitts provisionally certified a subclass of patients who received gender-affirming care at Packard and granted a preliminary injunction barring the DOJ from obtaining the patient-identifying and sensitive health records. The court held that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their Fifth Amendment informational privacy claim, and the DOJ had at most a negligible need for the data because records about care provided in California bear no apparent relevance to any offense chargeable in the Northern District of Texas. The court added that the DOJ had manufactured its own forum-shopping problem by withdrawing the administrative subpoena and reissuing it as a grand jury subpoena from a forum it deemed friendlier, to avoid another loss. The DOJ appealed the injunction to the Ninth Circuit. | “The unavoidable conclusion is that DOJ issued its grand jury subpoena to avoid another loss and force Packard and its patients to pursue any challenge to DOJ’s demands in a forum that DOJ deems friendlier. This is hardly DOJ’s first such ploy.” (Court Opinion) | Grand Jury Subpoena | Grand Jury Subpoena to Fulton County Board of Registration and Elections Docket: 1:26-cv-02777 District Court Order N.D. Ga. — Judge William Ray II (Trump) | Elections & Voter Data | Grand Jury Subpoena | On July 7, 2026, Judge Ray granted the Fulton County Board of Registration and Elections’ motion to quash the DOJ’s grand jury subpoena and denied the government’s cross-motion to enforce it, finding that the subpoena — which sought the names, home addresses, personal phone numbers, and emails of thousands of 2020 election workers and volunteers — was “staggering” and an “arbitrary fishing expedition.” The court held the subpoena was “unreasonable” under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c)(2). Applying the balancing approach from Justice Stevens’ concurrence in R. Enterprises (1991), Judge Ray found the DOJ’s need for the information low because the five-year statute of limitations on any crime arising from the 2020 election had run, and the burden on Fulton County high given the likely chilling effect on election worker participation. The court directed the Clerk to terminate the case. | “The Subpoena requests disclosure of personal identifying information of thousands of employees and volunteers who participated in activities related to the 2020 Election. Such a large disclosure of information threatens to chill participation in future elections, which will surely impact Fulton County.” (Court Opinion) “So, is there anything wrong with the DOJ using the Grand Jury to subpoena these records from Fulton County? In this Court’s view, yes. These records, even if they lead to the DOJ finding individuals who worked for Fulton County in the 2020 Election who support the theory that the 2020 Election was not fair, would not lead to information that could be used to charge anyone with anything, at least not any viable charge.” (Court Opinion) “[T]he Court agrees with Fulton County that, in pursuing the Subpoena, the DOJ is engaged in an “arbitrary fishing expedition,” such that the Subpoena is unreasonable and must be quashed.”(Court Opinion) “The DOJ essentially asks the Court to turn a blind eye to the DOJ’s investigation of nonspecific allegations and/or crimes which have no possibility of a conviction.” (Court Opinion) | Grand Jury Subpoena | National Defense Area Border Prosecutions D.N.M. — Chief Magistrate Judge Gregory B. Wormuth | Immigration & Border Enforcement | Misdemeanor Charges | Since late April 2025, the DOJ has charged at least 4,700 migrants with violating security regulations under 18 U.S.C. § 1382 by entering “National Defense Areas” in California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. Starting May 2025, magistrate judges dismissed the military-zone charges for lack of probable cause that defendants knew they had entered the zone. According to ProPublica and The Texas Tribune, at least 60% of these cases have been either dismissed or withdrawn. | “Beyond the reference to signage, the United States provides no facts from which one could reasonably conclude that the Defendant knew he was entering the NMNDA.” (Court Opinion) | Charging-Stage / Grand-Jury Rejections and Dismissals | United States v. Baraka Docket: 2:25-mj-11131 D. N.J. — Magistrate Judge Andre Espinosa | Prosecutorial Misconduct | Grand Jury Indictment | On May 21, 2025, then-Interim U.S. Attorney for New Jersey Alina Habba withdrew charges against Newark Mayor Ras Baraka after he was arrested at a protest outside an ICE facility. | “The apparent rush in this case, culminating today in the embarrassing retraction of charges, suggests a failure to adequately investigate, to carefully gather facts, and to thoughtfully consider the implications of your actions before wielding your immense power.” (Bench Transcript) “An arrest, particularly of a public figure, is not a preliminary investigative tool. It is a severe action, carrying significant reputational and personal consequences, and it should only be undertaken after a thorough, dispassionate evaluation of credible evidence.” (Bench Transcript) | Charging-Stage / Grand-Jury Rejections and Dismissals | L.A. Federal Takeover and Central District of California Cases Dismissed C.D. Cal. | Protesters & Prosecutorial Misconduct | Grand Jury Indictment | In June 2025, the Trump administration deployed roughly 2,100 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to Los Angeles in response to protests against ICE raids, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California — under Bill Essayli, later found to be unlawfully appointed to the office — brought a wave of felony charges against protesters and bystanders. The cases reportedly failed at an unusual rate. Of at least 38 felony cases filed over the June protests, Essayli’s office reportedly secured only 7 indictments, as grand juries repeatedly returned no bills.* As of July 2026, at least 24 federal takeover-related charges were either dismissed or withdrawn by prosecutors. According to an analysis by The Guardian, prosecutors dropped at least eight felonies after immigration officers gave false or misleading testimony, and five demonstrators’ cases collapsed after DHS agents misstated the sequence of events and mischaracterized conduct captured on video. Bloomberg Law reported that U.S. Attorney Essayli overruled senior prosecutors’ recommendations, instructed staff to disregard the Justice Manual, and directed lawyers to re-present failed cases to new grand juries. [Authors’ note: we count these actions as at least two grand jury no bills.] | Charging-Stage / Grand-Jury Rejections and Dismissals | | District of Columbia Cases Dismissed D.D.C. — Judge Sparkle Sooknanan (Biden) Magistrate Judge Zia M. Faruqui | Protesters & Prosecutorial Misconduct | Grand Jury Indictment | In August 2025, the Trump administration launched a federal law-enforcement surge in Washington, D.C., federalizing the Metropolitan Police Department and deploying National Guard troops. The U.S. Attorney’s Office under Jeanine Pirro brought felony charges, mostly consisting of assaults on federal officers, against people arrested during the takeover. At least 27 cases charged during the surge were dropped by prosecutors or dismissed by judges. 11 of those cases were dismissed with prejudice — meaning prosecutors cannot press charges again due to severe misconduct, lack of merit, or threat of prosecutorial harassment. In an opinion dismissing the cases against Donisha Butler and Terrance Wilson, Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui had the clerk’s office run the numbers: the government moved to dismiss 20 of the 95 cases it charged by criminal complaint over eight weeks, a 21% dismissal rate, against fewer than 20 dismissals out of more than 4,000 complaint-charged cases in the preceding decade, a statistic Magistrate Judge Faruqui called “shocking.” Grand juries drove part of the collapse. By September 2025, grand jurors had refused to indict in at least eight surge prosecutions — including D.C. attorney Paul Bryant, Edward Dana, Nathalie Jones, and Alvin Summers whose cases were then dismissed. Sidney Reid and Sean Dunn, the man accused of throwing a sandwich at a federal agent, also received grand jury no bills, and both were later acquitted on misdemeanor charges at trial. Judge Sparkle Sooknanan found that prosecutors had been charging and detaining people in Superior (local) Court while deciding whether to pursue federal charges — producing prolonged and unnecessary pretrial detention. As of July 2026, at least 35 cases have been dismissed or withdrawn by federal prosecutors in the District of Columbia during the second Trump administration. | Judge Sparkle Sooknanan: “For the last several weeks, judges in this District have seen case after case involving unprecedented prosecutorial action. In some cases, prosecutors have elected to pursue charges even after federal grand juries have refused to return an indictment.” (Court Opinion) Judge Sooknanan: “In the last several months, prosecutors have been ‘parking’ cases in D.C. Superior Court—i.e., charging individuals in D.C. Superior Court and detaining them while deciding whether to pursue federal charges—resulting in the prolonged and unnecessary pretrial detention of District residents.” (Court Opinion) Judge Sooknanan: “The Office’s seemingly cavalier approach to pretrial detention is alarming, particularly at a facility with a death rate that is three times the nationwide average.” (Court Opinion) Judge Sooknanan: “The Court refuses to turn a blind eye to yet another example of the U.S. Attorney’s Office choosing to exercise the power it wields without regard for the very individuals it serves.” (Court Opinion) Magistrate Judge Zia M. Faruqui: “Specifically, the government has moved to dismiss 21% of all cases that have been charged by criminal complaint over the last eight weeks. This is a shocking statistic compared to the 0.5% of cases charged by criminal complaint that the government has dismissed over the last ten years.” (Court Opinion) Judge Faruqui: “Arresting, charging, dismissing, re-charging, dismissing again, recharging again in another court, and dismissing again: this roller coaster is anything but normal.” (Court Opinion) Judge Faruqui: “We don’t just charge people criminally, throw them in the jail for a few weeks and then bring them in here and say, ‘Oops, my bad’ ... “I have never ever in my life seen something close to the illegality of this search.” (News Report of Transcript) | Charging-Stage / Grand-Jury Rejections and Dismissals | United States v. Sidney Reid Docket: 1:25-cr-00244 D.D.C. — Grand Jury | Protesters & Prosecutorial Misconduct | Grand Jury Indictment and Misdemeanor Case | In August 2025, on three separate occasions, a grand jury refused federal prosecutors’ attempt to indict Sidney Reid for felony assault during an alleged altercation with federal officers who she was filming during an ICE arrest. Prosecutors under interim U.S. Attorney Pirro refiled the charge as a misdemeanor. On October 17, 2025, a jury acquitted Reid in under two hours. | Charging-Stage / Grand-Jury Rejections and Dismissals | | United States v. Sean Charles Dunn Docket: 1:25-cr-00252 D.D.C. — Grand Jury | Protesters & Prosecutorial Misconduct | Grand Jury Indictment and Misdemeanor Case | In August 2025, a grand jury reportedly declined to return a felony assault indictment against Sean Dunn – an anti-government protester who allegedly threw a turkey sandwich at a federal officer. The DOJ refiled the case as a misdemeanor, but Dunn was acquitted at trial on November 6, 2025. | Charging-Stage / Grand-Jury Rejections and Dismissals | | United States v. Kevontae Stewart Docket: 1:25-mj-00225 Magistrate Judge Order District Court Order D.D.C. — Grand Jury Magistrate Judge Zia M. Faruqui Chief Judge James E. Boasberg (Obama) | Prosecutorial Misconduct | Grand Jury Indictment | In September 2025, Kevontae Stewart was arrested in the District of Columbia for allegedly unlawfully carrying a firearm. After a federal grand jury refused to indict him, federal prosecutors obtained an indictment from a Superior Court (local) grand jury. Magistrate Judge Zia M. Faruqui refused to accept the local grand jury’s indictment, arguing that prosecutors’ approach was contrary to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.” Federal prosecutors appealed Judge Faruqui’s decision to Chief Judge James Boasberg, who issued an order allowing the use of local grand juries to obtain federal indictments, owing to D.C.’s special status. | Charging-Stage / Grand-Jury Rejections and Dismissals | | United States v. Letitia James Docket: 2:25-cr-00122 District Court Opinion E.D. Va. — Senior Judge Cameron McGowan Currie (Clinton) | Political Opponents & Officials | Grand Jury Indictment | In September 2025, federal prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia reportedly found insufficient evidence to charge New York Attorney General Letitia James over alleged mortgage fraud. On October 9, 2025, after the U.S. Attorney who declined to prosecute the case resigned under alleged pressure from the White House, Lindsey Halligan — a former Trump personal attorney installed as interim U.S. Attorney — personally secured a grand jury indictment. On November 24, 2025, Judge Currie dismissed the indictment without prejudice, holding that Halligan was unlawfully appointed. The DOJ sought a fresh indictment, but grand juries reportedly declined twice — on December 4, 2025 and on December 11, 2025. The DOJ has filed an appeal at the Fourth Circuit arguing that Halligan was lawfully appointed and that the indictment should not have been dismissed. | Charging-Stage / Grand-Jury Rejections and Dismissals | | United States v. James Comey Docket: 1:25-cr-00272 District Court Opinion E.D. Va. — Senior Judge Cameron McGowan Currie (Clinton) | Political Opponents & Officials | Grand Jury Indictment | On September 25, 2025, a federal grand jury indicted former FBI Director James Comey on two counts arising from his 2020 Senate Judiciary Committee testimony. The grand jury declined a third count. The charges came after career prosecutors reportedly found insufficient evidence, the U.S. Attorney who resisted charging was pushed out, and Trump installed his former personal attorney Lindsey Halligan as interim U.S. Attorney — she alone presented the case and signed the indictment, days before the five-year statute of limitations expired. On November 24, 2025, Judge Currie dismissed the indictment without prejudice, holding that Halligan was unlawfully appointed, so all actions flowing from her defective appointment, including securing and signing the indictment, were void. The DOJ has filed an appeal at the Fourth Circuit arguing that Halligan was lawfully appointed and that the indictment should not have been dismissed. | This case presents the unique, if not unprecedented, situation where an unconstitutionally appointed prosecutor, ‘exercising power [she] did not lawfully possess,’ . . . acted alone in conducting a grand jury proceeding and securing an indictment.” (Court Opinion) | Charging-Stage / Grand-Jury Rejections and Dismissals | Operation Midway Blitz (Chicago ICE Surge) Cases N.D. Ill. | Protesters & Prosecutorial Misconduct | Grand Jury Indictment | In September 2025, the Trump administration launched Operation Midway Blitz, a surge of federal law enforcement to aid in mass deportations in Chicago. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois — under Andrew Boutros, appointed without Senate confirmation — charged 33 people with federal nonimmigration crimes arising from protests against it. According to an analysis by the Chicago Sun-Times, as of May 2026, 16 of the 26 felony cases — brought against 23 of the 33 defendants — had been dismissed, one individual was acquitted, and only two had pleaded guilty. In 3 cases, grand juries returned no bills, and other charges were dismissed after body-camera footage contradicted the charging affidavits. According to ProPublica, of 109 arrests of protesters in the Chicago area, charges were dropped in at least 75 cases. In the most prominent case (“the Broadview Six”), six protesters were indicted in October 2025 for conspiring to impede a federal agent outside the Broadview ICE facility. The indictment came on the third grand jury presentation, after a no bill on the first presentation and the second presentation was cut short, and was obtained by a prosecutor who vouched for the case, excused a dissenting grand juror, and communicated with jurors outside the grand jury room. After Judge April Perry took the rare step of ordering unredacted copies of the grand jury transcripts in the Broadview Six case, the government dropped the felony count and, on May 21, 2026, dismissed all remaining charges. Ten defendants in three unrelated cases handled by the same prosecutor have since had charges dismissed, and more than 1000 grand jury presentations in the Northern District of Illinois are reportedly under review. A motion by the Broadview Six defendants to appoint an outside special counsel to investigate the U.S. Attorney’s Office for criminal contempt remains pending before Judge Perry. | Grand Juror in Broadview Six case: “I heard this case like last week and I thought it was a crock of sh** then and still think it is.” (Grand Jury Transcript) Judge April M. Perry (N.D. Ill. — Biden): “[On Broadview Six case] I have read hundreds, if not thousands, of grand jury transcripts… I have never seen the types of prosecutorial behavior before a grand jury that I saw in those transcripts.” (Bench Transcript) Judge Perry: “I do believe deeply in the presumption of regularity and that most government attorneys are doing the best they can to do the right thing. That trust has been broken.” (Bench Transcript) | Charging-Stage / Grand-Jury Rejections and Dismissals | Operation Metro Surge (Minnesota ICE Surge) Cases D. Minn. Judge John Tunheim (Clinton) | Protesters & Prosecutorial Misconduct | Grand Jury Indictment | In December 2025, the Trump administration launched Operation Metro Surge, an immigration enforcement operation in the Twin Cities that expanded statewide and detained roughly 3,000 people. Federal prosecutors in the District of Minnesota charged roughly 36 Minnesotans in a first wave of cases alleging assault on or impeding of federal immigration agents. A Star Tribune analysis found that at least 15 cases against 16 defendants — nearly half of those charged — have been dismissed. Several others were downgraded from felonies to misdemeanors. In two cases, charges were dismissed with prejudice — meaning the government cannot attempt to recharge the defendant. In one of these cases, prosecutors disclosed newly discovered evidence materially inconsistent with the charges, and two ICE agents were suspended pending a criminal probe into whether they lied to the grand jury. In the other, when prosecutors moved to dismiss rather than produce court-ordered discovery, Judge John Tunheim dismissed with prejudice on June 12, 2026, finding the government gave no reasoned explanation, appeared to be using dismissal to evade its discovery obligations, violated the court's sealing order, and likely violated DOJ’s own policies. | Judge John Tunheim (D. Minn. — Clinton): “In short, the Government’s actions in this case violated a Court order, likely violated the Department of Justice’s own policies, and undermined the presumption of innocence that lies at the heart of our criminal justice system. For these reasons, the Court concludes that the dismissal with prejudice is necessary to protect Ahmed from prosecutorial harassment.” (Court Opinion) | Charging-Stage / Grand-Jury Rejections and Dismissals | United States v. Parias Docket: 2:25-cr-00904 District Court Opinion C.D. Cal. — Judge Fernando M. Olguin (Obama) | Immigration & Prosecutorial Misconduct | Grand Jury Indictment | On December 27, 2025, Judge Olguin dismissed the case against Parias with prejudice for prosecutor’s failure to allow defendant timely access to counsel while in ICE custody, as well as failure to comply with discovery. The court also took note of misrepresentations and lack of coordination between the U.S. Attorney’s Office and DHS. The government has appealed to the Ninth Circuit. | "...the government’s failure to coordinate the overlapping actions of its separate agencieswhile relentlessly pursuing Mr. Parias’s criminal proceedings created a situation from which constitutional violations could – and did – occur." (Court Opinion) “In short, because the deprivation of Mr. Parias’s access to counsel during the critical period prior to his trial caused him actual and threatened prejudice, and because no other remedy could adequately cure his deprivation, the court agrees with defendant that dismissal of the indictment is warranted.” (Court Opinion) | Charging-Stage / Grand-Jury Rejections and Dismissals | Attempt to Indict Six Members of Congress for Video to Military Service Members D.D.C. — Grand Jury | Political Opponents & Officials | Grand Jury Indictment | On February 10, 2026, a grand jury reportedly declined to indict six lawmakers (Sens. Kelly and Slotkin; Reps. Crow, Goodlander, Deluzio, and Houlahan) over a November 2025 video informing military personnel of their ability to refuse illegal orders. | Charging-Stage / Grand-Jury Rejections and Dismissals | | United States v. Timberlake Docket: 0:25-cr-00232 District Court Opinion (Feb. 23, 2026) District Court Opinion (Apr. 7, 2026) D. Minn. — Judge David S. Doty (Reagan) | Prosecutorial Misconduct | Grand Jury Indictment | On February 23, 2026, Judge Doty dismissed the indictment against Tavon Tarrell Timberlake with prejudice because prosecutors failed to commence trial within 70 days of taking Timberlake into custody, in violation of the Speedy Trial Act. On April 7, 2026, Judge Doty denied federal prosecutors’ request to reconsider the dismissal, ruling that the government failed to provide any new evidence or demonstrate a manifest error of law. The court further ordered the government’s motion and exhibits be completely stricken from the record for violating the court’s procedural rules. | Charging-Stage / Grand-Jury Rejections and Dismissals | | In re Wyoming Felony Indictments (Darin Smith grand-jury misconduct) Docket: 1:26-cr-00028 District Court Opinion D. Wyo. — Chief Judge Kelly H. Rankin (Biden), Judge Alan B. Johnson (Reagan), Judge Scott W. Skavdahl (Obama) | Prosecutorial Misconduct | Grand Jury Indictment | On May 15, 2026, a joint order issued by a three-judge panel in the District of Wyoming dismissed nine felony indictments without prejudice after finding U.S. Attorney Darin Smith made improper, inflammatory remarks to grand jurors (calling defendants “murderers,” telling them indictment “won’t take long”). | [The three judges found Smith’s] “inflammatory and inappropriate” comments gave the court “grave doubt that the decision to indict was free from the substantial influence of such violations.” (Court Opinion) | Charging-Stage / Grand-Jury Rejections and Dismissals | United States v. Kilmar Abrego Garcia Docket: 3:25-cr-00115 District Court Opinion M.D. Tenn. — Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw (Obama) | Immigration & Prosecutorial Misconduct | Grand Jury Indictment | On May 22, 2026, Judge Crenshaw dismissed federal prosecutors’ indictment of Kilmar Abrego Garcia — a Maryland resident the federal government illegally deported and was ordered to facilitate his return to the United States — for vindictive prosecution. Judge Crenshaw found Abrego Garcia would not have been prosecuted if he had not been successful in reversing his illegal deportation. The DOJ appealed the dismissal to the Sixth Circuit. | “[T]he timing of Agent VanWie’s decision to reopen the closed HSI investigation of the November 2022 traffic stop and Blanche’s now unrebutted public statements tying the reopened investigation to Abrego’s successful lawsuit taints the investigation with a vindictive motive.” (Court Opinion) “The evidence before this Court sadly reflects an abuse of prosecuting power.” (Court Opinion) “The objective evidence here shows that, absent Abrego’s successful lawsuit challenging his removal to El Salvador, the Government would not have brought this prosecution.” (Court Opinion) | Charging-Stage / Grand-Jury Rejections and Dismissals | United States v. Fagan et al Docket: 1:26-cr-00291 N.D. Ill. — Magistrate Judge Keri L. Holleb Hotaling | Prosecutorial Misconduct | Grand Jury Indictment | On June 14, 2026, federal prosecutors in the Northern District of Illinois dismissed charges against three defendants in an attempted robbery case after a video emerged inconsistent with FBI and ATF agent testimony. Magistrate Judge Hotaling is considering whether to impose sanctions on the government for its conduct. | “This court is very concerned that I cannot rely on the information that is provided to me … from the U.S. Attorney’s Office.” (Bench Transcript) | Charging-Stage / Grand-Jury Rejections and Dismissals | Assault Cases Against Protesters and Immigrants Dismissed Nationwide | Protests and Prosecutorial Misconduct | Grand Jury Indictment & Misdemeanor | According to a July 2026 analysis by The New York Times, federal prosecutors around the country have brought more than 550 charges against individuals related to protests or immigration enforcement for assaulting federal law enforcement officers under 18 U.S.C. § 111. Of those cases, at least 213 have resulted in judge-ordered dismissals, prosecutors dropping charges, or juries acquitting defendants (including a portion of the 79 cases dismissed or dropped relating to ICE protests or federal law enforcement surges in D.C., Chicago, Minnesota, and Los Angeles). In 65 cases, federal prosecutors dropped or downgraded charges before a deadline to secure an indictment. Due to the secrecy of grand jury proceedings, the exact number of refusals is publicly known. Of the cases that prosecutors won, almost all were the result of guilty pleas. In at least 30 instances, judges admonished federal prosecutors or law enforcement for misconduct, such as withholding evidence, improper communications with jurors, and making false statements. | Charging-Stage / Grand-Jury Rejections and Dismissals | | In re Subpoena Duces Tecum No 25-1431-016 (Seattle Children’s Hospital) Docket: 2:25-mc-00041 District Court Opinion W.D. Wash. — Judge John H. Chun (Biden) | Gender-Affirming Care | DOJ § 3486 Administrative Subpoena | On June 11, 2025, the DOJ served Seattle Children’s Hospital (SCH) with an administrative subpoena under 18 U.S.C. § 3486, reportedly to investigate off-label promotion of puberty blockers and hormone therapy under the FDCA and false claims to federal health programs, pursuant to Executive Order 14187 and a memo from Attorney General Bondi. Its 15 requests included the personnel files of nearly all SCH employees and the full medical records of gender-affirming care patients, including their Social Security numbers and home addresses. SCH moved to set aside the subpoena on July 8, 2025. On September 3, 2025, Judge Chun granted the motion to set aside the subpoena, holding that the government’s justification for issuing the subpoena was likely “pretextual” and that it actually sought to pressure the hospital to end gender-affirming care treatment. The court held the subpoena was unlawful due to improper purpose, since providing gender-affirming care for minors is not a “federal healthcare offense.” The DOJ appealed to the Ninth Circuit. | “[Seattle Children’s Hospital] asserts that the DOJ issued the subpoena to further its broader goal of ending ‘gender-affirming treatment’ in Washington state. The Court agrees.” (Court Opinion) “Because the DOJ’s prima facie case that the subpoena is issued to investigate a federal healthcare offense is threadbare, it is more likely that this justification is pretextual.” (Court Opinion) | Administrative Subpoenas | In re Administrative Subpoena (Boston Children’s Hospital) Docket: 1:25-mc-91324 District Court Opinion D. Mass. — Judge Myong J. Joun (Biden) | Gender-Affirming Care | DOJ § 3486 Administrative Subpoena | On June 11, 2025, the DOJ served Boston Children’s Hospital with an administrative subpoena under 18 U.S.C. § 3486, reportedly to investigate off-label promotion of puberty blockers and hormone therapy under the FDCA and false claims to federal health programs, pursuant to Executive Order 14187 and a memo from Attorney General Bondi. Its 15 requests included the personnel files of nearly all BCH employees and the full medical records of gender-affirming care patients, including their Social Security numbers and home addresses. BCH moved to quash on July 8, 2025. On September 9, 2025, Judge Joun granted the motion to quash, holding that the government failed to show proper purpose, that the requests were overbroad, and that, even if a prima facie showing had been made, BCH demonstrated the subpoena was issued in bad faith for an improper purpose: to interfere with Massachusetts’s protection of GAC, harass BCH into stopping care, and dissuade patients from seeking it. The DOJ appealed to the First Circuit. | “It is abundantly clear that the true purpose of issuing the subpoena is to interfere with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ right to protect GAC within its borders, to harass and intimidate [Boston Children’s Hospital] to stop providing such care, and to dissuade patients from seeking such care. … I find that the Government has failed to show proper purpose and, even if it had, that BCH has demonstrated that the subpoena was issued for an improper purpose, motivated only by bad faith.” (Court Opinion) | Administrative Subpoenas | QueerDoc, PLLC v. U.S. Department of Justice Docket: 2:25-mc-00042 District Court Opinion W.D. Wash. — Judge Jamal N. Whitehead (Biden) | Gender-Affirming Care | DOJ § 3486 Administrative Subpoena | On June 11, 2025, the DOJ served QueerDoc — a small telehealth provider offering gender-affirming care in ten states — with an administrative subpoena under 18 U.S.C. § 3486, reportedly to investigate off-label promotion of puberty blockers and hormone therapy under the FDCA and false claims to federal health programs, pursuant to Executive Order 14187 and a memo from Attorney General Bondi. Its 15 requests included the personnel files of nearly all employees and the full medical records of gender-affirming-care patients, including their Social Security numbers and home addresses. QueerDoc moved to quash on July 8, 2025. On October 27, 2025, Judge Whitehead granted the motion to quash, holding the subpoena was issued for an improper purpose in bad faith, stating that the administration’s own repeated declarations that it sought to end gender-affirming care were direct evidence of improper purpose. The DOJ appealed to the Ninth Circuit. | “The mismatch between DOJ’s stated investigation and QueerDoc’s actual operations further reveals the subpoena’s pretextual nature.” (Court Opinion) “[W]hen a federal agency issues a subpoena not to investigate legal violations but to intimidate and coerce providers into abandoning lawful medical care, it exceeds its legitimate authority and abuses the judicial process.” (Court Opinion) “It suggests that DOJ issued the subpoena first and searched for a justification second. No legitimate investigation would demand thousands of patient records from an entity that cannot, by definition, commit the violations being investigated.”(Court Opinion) | Administrative Subpoenas | In re Administrative Subpoena No. 25-1431-014 (Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia) Docket: 2:25-mc-00039 District Court Opinion E.D. Pa. — Judge Mark A. Kearney (Obama) | Gender-Affirming Care | DOJ § 3486 Administrative Subpoena | On June 12, 2025, the DOJ served the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) with a § 3486 administrative subpoena, reportedly investigating misbranding and off-label promotion of puberty blockers and hormone therapy under the FDCA. CHOP moved on July 8, 2025 to limit Requests 11–13, which demanded the identity of every patient prescribed those drugs (name, date of birth, Social Security number, address, and guardian information), along with their diagnoses and consent records; patients and their parents moved to limit the subpoena as well. On November 21, 2025, Judge Kearney granted the motion, striking Requests 11–13 on two independent grounds — that the DOJ lacked statutory authority, because the children’s records bear no relevance to a “federal health care offense” (the FDCA does not reach physicians’ off-label prescribing), and that, even if relevant, the Third Circuit’s Westinghouse privacy-balancing test weighed overwhelmingly against disclosing records this sensitive, a harm underscored by the DOJ’s stated intent to use the patients’ identities as investigative leads and their parents as witnesses. The DOJ appealed to the Third Circuit, but then withdrew its appeal. | “[DOJ’s] wayward reasoning makes it difficult to identify a consistent statutory basis or investigative target within the limits Congress imposed in Section 3486 and leaves uncertain whether the present three requests (for personally identifying and highly confidential and sensitive medical records of children) remains confined to the ‘federal health care offense’ Congress authorized the Department of Justice to investigate for the stated purposes under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act. This explanation is not credible.” (Court Opinion) | Administrative Subpoenas | In re 2025 UPMC Subpoena Docket: 2:25-mc-01069 District Court Order (Dec. 24, 2025) District Court Order (Mar. 2, 2026) W.D. Pa. — Chief Judge Cathy Bissoon (Obama) | Gender-Affirming Care | DOJ § 3486 Administrative Subpoena | On June 11, 2025, the DOJ served University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) with a § 3486 administrative subpoena reportedly to investigate off-label promotion of puberty blockers and hormone therapy under the FDCA. Requests 11–13 demanded the name, date of birth, Social Security number, address, and guardian information of every minor prescribed those drugs, along with their diagnoses and consent records. Patients and former patients who received that care at UPMC as minors, together with their parents, moved to quash Requests 11-13. On December 24, 2025, Chief Judge Bissoon granted the motion to quash, adopting Judge Kearney’s parallel E.D. Pa. opinion by reference and holding that the investigation “tramples” Pennsylvania’s authority to police and regulate medical care. After the DOJ filed a premature notice of appeal, the court held on March 2, 2026 that it retained jurisdiction and rejected the DOJ’s proposal for anonymized production, finding true anonymization unachievable and that any balancing of the patients’ privacy against the government’s demands would over-legitimize a subpoena that exceeds DOJ’s statutory authority and “usurp[s]” the States’ regulation of medicine — reaffirming the quash with what it now called closer to “a stench” of “ill-intent.” | [Dec. 24, 2025] “[T]his Court joins the others in finding that the government’s demand for deeply private and personal patient information carries more than a whiff of ill-intent. This is apparent from its rhetoric.” (Court Opinion) [Mar. 2, 2026] “To the extent the DOJ has urged trust, moreover, it must understand why its assurances are cold comfort.” (Court Opinion) “The subpoena exceeds the DOJ’s statutory authority. The DOJ would usurp the States’ regulation of the medical profession. Its rhetoric regarding gender-affirming care reflects callous indifference, if not abject cruelty. There is more than a ‘whiff’ of ill-intent. Arguably, it is closer to a stench.” (Court Opinion) | Administrative Subpoenas | In re 2025 Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles Subpoena Docket: 2:25-cv-11183 C.D. Cal. — Judge Michelle W. Court (Biden) | Gender-Affirming Care | DOJ § 3486 Administrative Subpoena | On June 11, 2025, the DOJ served Children’s Hospital Los Angeles with a § 3486 administrative subpoena, reportedly to investigate off-label promotion of puberty blockers and hormone therapy under the FDCA. Requests 11–13 demanded the name, date of birth, Social Security number, address, and guardian information of every minor prescribed those drugs, along with their diagnoses and consent records. Parents and guardians of former patients at the hospital’s Center for Transyouth Health and Development moved to quash the three requests, to proceed under pseudonym, and for class certification on Nov. 21, 2025. On December 8, 2025, the DOJ withdrew Requests 11–13 in their entirety and instructed the hospital to redact all patient-identifying information, and on Jan. 22, 2026 the parties settled and the movants dismissed the action without prejudice. Under the settlement, the government agreed not to use any patient-identifying information it might receive, to require redaction to HIPAA de-identification standards, and to give the movants’ counsel 28 days’ advance notice before reissuing those requests or issuing any new subpoena seeking patient-identifying gender-care records from the hospital before February 2029. | Administrative Subpoenas | | In re DOJ Administrative Subpoena No. 25-1431-030 (Children’s Hospital Colorado) Docket: 1:25-mc-00063 Magistrate Recommendation D. Col. — Magistrate Judge Cyrus Y. Chung | Gender-Affirming Care | DOJ § 3486 Administrative Subpoena | On July 14, 2025, the DOJ served Children’s Hospital Colorado with a § 3486 administrative subpoena, reportedly investigating off-label promotion of puberty blockers and hormone therapy under the FDCA. Requests 11–13 demanded the name, address, and Social Security information of every minor prescribed those drugs, along with their diagnoses and consent records. On Jan. 5, 2026, Magistrate Judge Chung recommended the motion to quash Requests 11-13 be granted, finding the patient records bore little relevance to an FDCA investigation (which does not reach physicians’ off-label prescribing) and that the subpoena was issued for an improper purpose in bad faith — a pretext to pressure hospitals into ending gender-affirming care. A final order by Judge Crews is still pending as of publication. | “Taken together, then, the evidence ‘carries more than a whiff of ill-intent.’ … It paints a compelling picture illustrating that the government’s aim is not actually to investigate FDCA violations, but to use the FDCA as a smokescreen for its true objective of pressuring pediatric hospitals into ending gender-affirming care through commencing vague, suspicionless ‘investigations.’ Every court to consider the issue agrees. … To countenance such a tactic would be an abuse of the Court’s process.” (Court Opinion) | Administrative Subpoenas | In re 2025 Subpoena to Children’s National Hospital Docket: 1:25-cv-03780 District Court Opinion D. Md. — Judge Julie R. Rubin (Biden) | Gender-Affirming Care | DOJ § 3486 Administrative Subpoena | On June 11, 2025, the DOJ served Children’s National Hospital with an administrative subpoena under 18 U.S.C. § 3486, reportedly to investigate off-label promotion of puberty blockers and hormone therapy under the FDCA and false claims to federal health programs. Its 15 requests included the personnel files of nearly all CNH employees and the full medical records of gender-affirming-care patients, including their Social Security numbers and home addresses. Eight families whose children received care through the hospital’s Gender Development Program moved to quash on November 17, 2025. On Jan. 21, 2026, Judge Rubin granted the motion to quash, holding that the subpoena lacked a proper investigative purpose. Against the backdrop of the executive order and DOJ memos, the court found the subpoena was a pretext to advance the Executive’s policy of terminating gender-affirming care and only undertaken to intimidate and harass the hospital and patients. The DOJ appealed to the Fourth Circuit. | “[A]gainst the backdrop of Executive Order 14187, the April 2025 DOJ memorandum, and the June 2025 DOJ memorandum—the court finds the Subpoena is a pretext to fulfill the Executive’s well-publicized policy objective to terminate and block gender affirming healthcare.” (Court Opinion) “The Subpoena bears no credible connection to an investigation of any statutory violation by the Hospital … the Subpoena is the classic impermissible fishing expedition.” (Court Opinion) | Administrative Subpoenas | In re Motion to Quash Administrative Subpoena to Rhode Island Hospital Docket: 1:26-mc-00007 District Court Opinion and Order D.R.I. — Judge Mary S. McElroy (Trump) | Gender-Affirming Care | DOJ § 3486 Administrative Subpoena | On July 3, 2025, the DOJ served Rhode Island Hospital with an administrative subpoena under 18 U.S.C. § 3486, reportedly to investigate off-label promotion of puberty blockers and hormone therapy under the FDCA and false claims to federal health programs, pursuant to Executive Order 14187 and a memo from Attorney General Bondi. Its 15 requests included the personnel files of nearly all RIH employees and the full medical records of gender-affirming-care patients, including their Social Security numbers and home addresses. On April 30, 2026, after alleged noncompliance, the DOJ filed a petition in the Northern District of Texas to force Rhode Island Hospital to comply. On the same day, Judge Reed O’Connor (N.D. Tex. — Bush) ordered the hospital to comply with the subpoena. On May 12, 2026, the Fifth Circuit denied a motion to stay Judge O’Connor’s order to comply with the subpoena and, on May 18, 2026, Judge O’Connor ordered the hospital to directly produce the subpoenaed records to him. Rhode Island’s Child Advocate filed an emergency motion for an injunction at the First Circuit. Proceedings in the Fifth Circuit continue to move forward. Separately, on May 6, 2026, Rhode Island Hospital and Rhode Island’s Child Advocate moved to quash the subpoena in the District of Rhode Island, while concurrently appealing Judge O’Connor’s order to the Fifth Circuit. On May 13, 2026, Judge McElroy (D. R.I. — Trump) quashed the subpoena on three independent grounds: the subpoena lacked a congressionally authorized purpose, it was issued for an improper purpose in bad faith, and it demanded records that could not be produced consistent with the children’s Fourteenth Amendment right to informational privacy. The DOJ appealed Judge McElroy’s order to the First Circuit. Judge McElroy referred prosecutors involved in the case to a court discipline committee for misrepresentations. On May 19, 2026, the First Circuit declined to block Judge O’Connor’s order for lack of jurisdiction. | Judge McElroy:“[T]he discrepancy between the honorable conduct expected of federal prosecutors and DOJ’s tactics in this case is unsettling.The Court cannot help but share the sentiment that ‘[t]he presumption of regularity that has previously been extended to [DOJ] that it could be taken at its word—with little doubt about its intentions and stated purposes—no longer holds.’” (Court Opinion) Judge Mary S. McElroy (D.R.I. — Trump): “DOJ has proven unworthy . . . at every point in this case” [of the trust expected of prosecutors] and “has misrepresented and withheld information to both this court and the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas … in an obvious effort to shield its recent investigative tactics—previously rejected by every other court to review them—from [those courts’] review, in favor of a distant forum that DOJ deems friendly to its political positions.” (Court Opinion) Judge McElroy: “The subpoena lacks a congressionally authorized purpose, was issued for an improper purpose, and demands the production of records that cannot be obtained consistent with the constitutional privacy rights of Rhode Island children.” (Court Opinion) Judge McElroy: [On DOJ’s claim to the N.D. Tex. court that the hospital had not communicated since February:] the assertion was “clearly misleading, if not utterly false.” (Court Opinion) Judge McElroy: “This reckless disregard for the duty of candor owed to a federal court is appalling.” (Court Opinion) | Administrative Subpoenas | In re Administrative Subpoenas to Children’s Hospitals Docket: 8:26-cv-01834 District Court Opinion and Order D. Md. — Judge Julie R. Rubin (Biden) | Gender-Affirming Care | DOJ § 3486 Administrative Subpoena | On May 9, 2026, minor transgender patients and their parents from four hospitals — Children’s National, Connecticut Children’s, Michigan Medicine, and Rady Children’s — moved to quash Requests 11–13 of the DOJ’s § 3486 subpoenas (demanding the identity of every gender-affirming care patient, including Social Security numbers and addresses, along with their diagnoses and consent records), to certify a nationwide class covering all such subpoenas, and to enjoin the DOJ’s use of the data. On June 9, 2026, Judge Rubin granted the motion in part, denying class certification but quashing the CNH subpoena in full for lack of a proper investigative purpose, holding it a pretext to advance the Executive’s policy of terminating gender-affirming care and rejecting the government’s offer to cure it by anonymizing the records. | “The court concludes the CNH Subpoena was not issued for a legitimate governmental purpose, is not limited in scope to any legitimate purpose, and is oppressive in its breadth.” (Court Opinion) “Nothing the Government submits plausibly explains the purported connection between the documents it demands and suspected FDCA violations by CNH.” (Court Opinion) “Considering the patent disassociation of the scope of the CNH Subpoena from purported investigation of supposed FDCA violations … the court finds the CNH Subpoena is a pretext to fulfill the Executive’s well-publicized policy objective to terminate and block gender affirming healthcare.” (Court Opinion) “The CNH Subpoena bears no credible connection to an investigation of any statutory violation by CNH. Rather, the CNH Subpoena appears to have no purpose other than to intimidate and harass Movants and those similarly situated. The Government seeks to fulfill its policy agenda through compliance born of fear. Moreover, in the view of the court, the CNH Subpoena is the classic impermissible fishing expedition.” (Court Opinion) | Administrative Subpoenas | Seizure Warrant for Grants to Climate Non-Profits D.D.C — Unknown Magistrate Judge | Prosecutorial Misconduct | Seizure Warrant | In February 2025, according to public reporting, then-Interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Ed Martin personally submitted a seizure warrant application for $20 billion in grant funds held at Citibank designated for climate non-profits. A federal magistrate judge allegedly refused to sign off on the warrant after finding the DOJ had failed to establish probable cause. | Search / Arrest-Warrant Rejections and Restrictions | | Columbia Student Protest Investigation Docket: 1:25-mc-00218 S.D.N.Y. — Judge John G. Koeltl (Clinton) Chief Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn | Protesters (Campus Protests) | Search Warrant | In March 2025, on three occasions, Chief Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn rejected a search warrant application submitted by prosecutors in an investigation of Columbia University student protesters for insufficient showing of probable cause. Then-Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove reportedly personally intervened to pressure reluctant federal prosecutors in the Southern District to apply for the search warrant. The search warrant, among other requests, attempted to uncover the identity of users behind a pro-Palestinian Instagram account. Judge Netburn argued that the conduct being investigated was lawful expression under First Amendment and did not “constitute a true threat.” Chief Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn told prosecutors to attach a transcript of her sealed proceedings with them if they submitted a similar application again. When federal prosecutors appealed Judge Netburn’s denial to district court Judge John G. Koeltl (S.D.N.Y. — Clinton), he also rejected the search warrant application, stating that Chief Judge Netburn had correctly identified constitutionally protected expression. | Search / Arrest-Warrant Rejections and Restrictions | | Search Warrants for Phone in D.C. Gun Possession Case Docket: 25-sw-82 Magistrate Opinion and Sealing Order Denial D.D.C. — Magistrate Judge Zia M. Faruqui | Prosecutorial Misconduct | Search Warrant | In May 2025, Magistrate Judge Zia M. Faruqui denied federal prosecutors’ application for a search warrant to collect DNA samples via buccal swabs from two individuals and to search one smartphone. Judge Faruqui denied all three requests due to a lack of probable cause and an insufficient evidentiary nexus. Four days after issuing his denial, Judge Faruqui then admonished and denied prosecutors’ attempt to seal his order denying the warrants. | “I have made over 1,000 probable cause findings in search warrants. Not once have I rejected a warrant. Until now.” “Blind deference to the government? That is no longer a thing. Trust that had been earned over generations has been lost in weeks. Numerous career prosecutors have had to resign instead of taking actions that they believe violated their oath of office, or worse, were fired for upholding that oath. . . . These norms being broken must have consequences. High deference is out; trust, but verify is in.” | Search / Arrest-Warrant Rejections and Restrictions | In the Matter of Searches Related to Hannah Natanson Docket: 1:26-sw-00054 Magistrate Order (Feb. 24, 2026) District Court Order (May 4, 2026) E.D. Va. — Senior Judge Anthony J. Trenga (Bush) Magistrate Judge William B. Porter | Journalists & News Organizations | Search Warrant | In January 2026, the FBI raided the Virginia home of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson and seized her laptops, phone, and other devices. The government was reportedly investigating a defense contractor accused of leaking national secrets and believed he had been one of Natanson’s sources. The devices held all of Natanson’s notes, unpublished stories, and contacts with roughly 1,200 confidential government sources. Prosecutors had not informed the magistrate judge who granted the initial search warrant about the Privacy Protection Act (PPA), a federal law that limits when the government can search a journalist’s work. Natanson and the Post asked the court to return the material and to block anyone from reviewing it in the meantime. In February 2026, Magistrate Judge William Porter rescinded his earlier search warrant that had authorized the government access to the seized materials, determining that he would conduct an independent judicial review of the files and return everything unrelated to the leak investigation. He also criticized prosecutors for not raising the PPA, saying that had he known about it, he may have denied the warrant application entirely and that the government’s failure to identify the PPA undermined the court’s confidence in the government’s disclosures in the proceeding. In May 2026, Judge Anthony Trenga affirmed that ruling and went further, finding that the First Amendment entitles news reporters to some protection of their confidential sources and that the PPA barred the government from searching the protected material it had seized. The court affirmed the magistrate judge’s decision to conduct an independent judicial review of the seized materials. | Magistrate Judge William B. Porter: [On DOJ’s failure to disclose the Privacy Protection Act of 1980:] “This omission has seriously undermined the Court’s confidence in the government’s disclosures in this proceeding. … Many government lawyers had multiple opportunities to identify the PPA as controlling authority and to include an analysis of it in the warrant application. None of them did.” (Court Opinion) Judge Porter: “In its day-to-day workings, this Court affords government attorneys a presumption of regularity, including by assuming that federal prosecutors have satisfied their obligation to disclose controlling and relevant authority. … The government’s conduct has disturbed that baseline posture of deference.” (Court Opinion) Judge Porter: “The government cannot pretextually label a reporter a suspect simply to gather evidence against the actual target.” (Court Opinion) Judge Porter: “The Court finds that seizing the totality of a reporter’s electronic work product, including tools essential to ongoing newsgathering, constitutes a restraint on the exercise of First Amendment rights.” (Court Opinion) Senior Judge Anthony J. Trenga (E.D. Va. — Bush): “The Government’s expansive view of what is permissible under the Fourth Amendment entirely disregards Natanson’s rights under the PPA and the First Amendment, which ‘entitle[s] news reporters to some constitutional protection of the confidentiality of their sources.’ (Court Opinion) | Search / Arrest-Warrant Rejections and Restrictions | In re Sealed (Cities Church/Don Lemon Arrest Warrant Denials) District Court Docket: 0:26-mj-00040 Appellate Docket: 26-1135 Chief Judge Letter to Eighth Circuit Eighth Circuit Opinion Magistrate Opinion D. Minn. — Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz (Bush) Magistrate Judge Douglas Micko Magistrate Judge John Doherty Eighth Circuit — Judges Jane L. Kelly (Obama), L. Steven Grasz (Trump), Jonathan A. Kobes (Trump) | Protesters (Immigration) | Arrest and Search Warrant | On January 20, 2026, the DOJ filed a criminal complaint seeking arrest warrants for eight people who had protested at Cities Church in St. Paul, MN two days earlier. Magistrate Judge Douglas Micko found probable cause to charge only three of the eight suspects and declined to issue arrest warrants for the other five — including former CNN anchor Don Lemon and his producer — directing the government to seek a grand jury indictment instead. After the U.S. Attorney demanded immediate district court review of the declined warrants, Chief Judge Schiltz called the request unprecedented and set a meeting of the district judges; before he ruled, the DOJ filed an emergency petition in the Eighth Circuit seeking a writ of mandamus or issuance of the five arrest warrants. On January 23, 2026, a three-judge panel on the Eighth Circuit unanimously denied the DOJ’s petition to issue the arrest warrants. On January 29, 2026, nine days after failing to obtain arrest warrants from a judge, the DOJ later did obtain grand jury indictments for the five individuals whose arrest warrants were rejected, including Don Lemon. On February 24, 2026, Magistrate Judge John Doherty rejected five search warrant applications for the protestors submitted by prosecutors, ruling that “[t]here is no showing of probable cause in any of the five search warrant applications.” Federal prosecutors sought information from YouTube about defendants’ accounts and from Apple about defendants’ phones. | [Chief Judge Schiltz in a letter to the Eighth Circuit, speaking of Don Lemon and his producer, stated they were] “not protesters at all” and that (based on evidence initially submitted by prosecutors) “[t]here is no evidence that those two engaged in any criminal behavior or conspired to do so.” (Letter to Eighth Circuit) [Schiltz called DOJ’s emergency mandamus effort] “unprecedented” and wrote: “There is absolutely no emergency.” (Letter to Eighth Circuit) | Search / Arrest-Warrant Rejections and Restrictions | II. Challenges to Civil Investigative Tools In the first 18 months of the Trump administration, federal courts have blocked civil investigative tools used by the federal government to try to obtain medical information from hospitals, voter records from states, private social media content from critics of ICE, and, in one case, documents from a media organization. In some cases, judges have held the administration’s investigations were a pretext for intimidation and acts of retaliation. Courts have also expressed distrust in the administration’s motives by comparing representations made in court to public statements by senior government officials. DOJ’s Voter Roll Demands The DOJ — purported to invoke authority under Title III of the Civil Rights Act (CRA), the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), and the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) — has issued demands to at least 48 states and Washington, D.C. to submit voter registration lists to the federal government. After 30 states and D.C. rejected such demands, the DOJ sued under the three statutes in a bid to compel production of the requested voter rolls. Courts have thus far dismissed 15 of these suits, with some judges finding the DOJ acted under “pretext” and engaged in an unlawful attempt to build a national voter database. No federal court has ruled in favor of the government in these cases. FTC Civil Investigative Demands for “Deceptive Practices” The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) under the Trump administration has routinely deployed civil investigative demands (CIDs) — the Commission’s equivalent of administrative subpoenas — pursuant to its authority under 15 U.S.C. § 57b-1. These have included broad requests to media organizations on journalistic practices, as well as to trade groups representing clinicians on information on gender-affirming care for minors. The FTC purports to be exercising its authority to investigate “deceptive practices” in commerce under Section 57b-1. The statute requires the FTC to have “reason to believe” that the recipient has possession of materials “relevant to deceptive practices.” Recipients can petition the FTC directly to quash the CID and then challenge in district court if the Commission declines their petitions. Three of the FTC’s CIDs have been successfully challenged in court as retaliation for protected speech. In all three cases, courts found a causal link between the organization’s constitutional rights to freedom of expression and the government’s retaliatory actions. DHS Administrative Subpoenas and Summonses The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has issued civil administrative subpoenas and summonses to social media companies such as Meta, Google, and Reddit to identify critics of the agency and its practices, allegedly to investigate threats against federal officers. DHS contends these subpoenas are authorized by 8 U.S.C. § 1225(d) and 19 U.S.C. § 1509. Litigants claimed the DHS exceeded its statutory authority on the ground that Section 1225(d) administrative subpoenas may only be used for investigations specifically related to immigration enforcement and that Section 1509 summonses can be used only in customs-related investigations, not general law enforcement investigations. In several cases where DHS subpoenas were challenged in court, the government decided to withdraw them. | Case Name | Category | Tool / Type | Overview | Key Quotes | Group | |---|---|---|---|---|---| United States v. Weber Docket: 2:25-cv-09149 District Court Opinion C.D. Cal. — Judge David O. Carter (Clinton) | Elections & Voter Data | Civil Enforcement Suit (compelled production of unredacted statewide voter file) | In July 2025, the DOJ demanded that California turn over its full, unredacted statewide voter registration list (including SSNs, driver’s license numbers, addresses, and voting history for ~23 million voters) and sued the state after it refused to do so. On Jan. 15, 2026, Judge Carter dismissed the suit without leave to amend, holding that the DOJ lacked the authority to demand such information, that its demands violated the federal privacy act, and that its stated purpose was pretextual. The DOJ appealed to the Ninth Circuit. | “The Court does not take lightly DOJ’s obfuscation of its true motives in the present matter. Congress passed the NVRA, Civil Rights Act, and HAVA to protect voting rights. If the DOJ wants to instead use these statutes for more than their stated purpose, circumventing the authority granted to them by Congress, it cannot do so under the guise of a pretextual investigative purpose.” (Court Opinion) “Even the federal government is not permitted to sue first, obtain discovery, and finalize its allegations later. This appears to be a telltale ‘fishing expedition.’ District courts do not “condone the use of discovery to engage in ‘fishing expeditions’ when the Plaintiff has no basis other than ‘gross speculation’ to support their claims.” (Court Opinion) | Voter-Roll Civil Enforcement Suits | United States v. State of Oregon Docket: 6:25-cv-01666 District Court Opinion D. Or. — Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai (Biden) | Elections & Voter Data | Civil Enforcement Suit (compelled production of unredacted statewide voter file) | In July 2025, the DOJ demanded that Oregon turn over its full, unredacted statewide voter registration list (including dates of birth, addresses, and driver’s license numbers or SSNs) and sued the state after it refused to hand over the sensitive fields. On Feb. 5, 2026, Judge Kasubhai dismissed the suit without leave to amend, holding that neither the NVRA, HAVA, nor Title III of the Civil Rights Act compelled disclosure, that the DOJ’s demand stated no adequate factual basis, and that its stated purpose was likely pretextual. The DOJ appealed to the Ninth Circuit. | “The presumption of regularity that has been previously extended to Plaintiff that it could be taken at its word—with little doubt about its intentions and stated purposes—no longer holds.” (Court Opinion) “The context of this demand within a letter about immigration enforcement casts serious doubt as to the true purposes for which Plaintiff is seeking voter registration lists in this and other cases, and what it intends to do with that data.” (Court Opinion) | Voter-Roll Civil Enforcement Suits | United States v. Benson Docket: 1:25-cv-01148 District Court Opinion Sixth Circuit Opinion W.D. Mich. — Chief Judge Hala Y. Jarbou (Trump) Sixth Circuit — Judge R. Guy Cole Jr. (Clinton) and Judge Ande Mathis (Biden) | Elections & Voter Data | Civil Enforcement Suit (compelled production of unredacted statewide voter file) | In July 2025, the DOJ demanded that Michigan turn over its full, unredacted statewide voter registration list (including dates of birth, driver’s license numbers, and last-four SSNs for every registered voter) and sued the state after it provided only the redacted public version. On Feb. 10, 2026, Chief Judge Jarbou dismissed the suit. The court found no alleged violation of HAVA, and no statutory authority to obtain voter lists under NVRA or the CRA. The DOJ appealed to the Sixth Circuit, challenging only the dismissal of its Title III claim. On June 24, 2026, the Sixth Circuit upheld the district court’s decision and blocked the DOJ’s appeal to obtain Michigan’s voter rolls. In a 2-1 decision, the panel found that the DOJ lacked statutory authority under Title III of the Civil Rights Act to obtain the statewide voter registration list, and that DOJ’s requests for the list were also defective for lacking a statement of purpose and basis for the demand. | Voter-Roll Civil Enforcement Suits | | United States v. Galvin Docket: 1:25-cv-13816 District Court Opinion D. Mass. — Judge Leo T. Sorokin (Obama) | Elections & Voter Data | Civil Enforcement Suit (compelled production of unredacted statewide voter file) | In July 2025, the DOJ demanded that Massachusetts turn over its full, unredacted statewide voter registration list (including either driver’s license numbers or SSNs for every registered voter) and sued the state after Secretary Galvin refused to hand it over. On April 9, 2026, Judge Sorokin dismissed the case and found that the DOJ’s demands for Massachusetts’ voter rolls was “facially deficient” because it failed to meet requirements imposed in Title III of the Civil Rights Act. The DOJ appealed to the First Circuit. | Voter-Roll Civil Enforcement Suits | | United States v. Amore Docket: 1:25-cv-00639 District Court Opinion D.R.I. — Judge Mary S. McElroy (Trump) | Elections & Voter Data | Civil Enforcement Suit (compelled production of unredacted statewide voter file) | In September 2025, the DOJ demanded that Rhode Island turn over its full, unredacted statewide voter registration list (including driver’s license numbers and SSNs for every registered voter) and sued the state after Secretary Amore offered only the redacted public version. On April 17, 2026, Judge McElroy dismissed the suit. The Court found that the DOJ’s demand for Rhode Island’s voter rolls lacked a legally sufficient factual basis and that its stated purpose falls outside the intended scope of Title III of the Civil Rights Act. The DOJ appealed to the First Circuit. | “Neither the NVRA nor HAVA authorize DOJ to conduct the kind of fishing expedition it seeks here.” (Court Opinion) | Voter-Roll Civil Enforcement Suits | United States v. Fontes Docket: 2:26-cv-00066 District Court Opinion D. Ariz – Judge Susan Brnovich (Trump) | Elections & Voter Data | Civil Enforcement Suit (compelled production of unredacted statewide voter file) | In July 2025, the DOJ demanded that Arizona turn over its full statewide voter registration list (including dates of birth, driver’s license numbers, and SSNs for every registered voter) under Title III of the Civil Rights Act and sued the state after Secretary Fontes refused on state and federal privacy grounds. On April 28, 2026, Judge Brnovich largely relied on Judge Jarbou’s reasoning in United States v. Benson (W.D. Mich.) to dismiss what the court called an “identical” effort in this case to obtain the state’s voter rolls, which it did not have authority for under Title III of the Civil Rights Act. The DOJ appealed to the Ninth Circuit. | Voter-Roll Civil Enforcement Suits | | United States v. Bellows Docket: 1:25-cv-00468 District Court Opinion D. Me — Chief Judge Lance E. Walker (Trump) | Elections & Voter Data | Civil Enforcement Suit (compelled production of unredacted statewide voter file) | In July 2025, the DOJ demanded that Maine turn over its full, unredacted statewide voter registration list (including dates of birth, driver’s license numbers, and last-four SSNs for every registered voter) and sued the state after Secretary Bellows refused to hand over the sensitive fields. On May 21, 2026, Chief Judge Walker dismissed the United States’ attempts to obtain Maine’s voter rolls. The court rejected the federal government’s claimed authority to compel production based on the government’s failure to allege any violations under HAVA or NVRA. The DOJ appealed to the First Circuit. | “At the hearing, the United States’ attorney was emphatic that ‘this whole notion that somehow there’s going to be a national database . . . ‘is not true,’ and that ‘there is no national database that’s being created’ … his efforts to assuage these concerns were almost immediately undermined by the issuance of an executive order directing the Department of Homeland Security to compile a ‘State Citizenship List.’” Court Opinion | Voter-Roll Civil Enforcement Suits | United States v. Wisconsin Election Commission Docket: 3:25-cv-01036 District Court Opinion W.D. Wis. — Judge James D. Peterson (Obama) | Elections & Voter Data | Civil Enforcement Suit (compelled production of unredacted statewide voter file) | In June 2025, the DOJ demanded that Wisconsin turn over its full, unredacted statewide voter registration list (specifying it wanted either the driver’s license number or SSN for every voter) and sued the Commission and its members after they provided only the redacted public version, citing state privacy laws. On May 21, 2026, Judge Peterson dismissed the suit and found that the DOJ’s requests for Wisconsin’s voter rolls fell outside the scope of authorized “investigatory purposes” under Title III of the Civil Rights Act. The DOJ appealed to the Seventh Circuit. | Voter-Roll Civil Enforcement Suits | | United States v. DeMarinis Docket: 1:25-cv-03934 District Court Opinion D. Md. — Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher (Trump) | Elections & Voter Data | Civil Enforcement Suit (compelled production of unredacted statewide voter file) | In July 2025, the DOJ demanded that Maryland turn over its full, unredacted statewide voter registration list and sued the State Administrator of Elections after he directed the DOJ to the publicly available portions and then rejected the demand outright. On June 18, 2026, Judge Gallagher dismissed the case with prejudice and found that DOJ’s requests for Maryland’s voter rolls fell outside the scope of authorized production demands under Title III of the Civil Rights Act. The DOJ appealed to the Fourth Circuit. | Voter-Roll Civil Enforcement Suits | | United States v. Al Schmidt Docket: 2:25-cv-01481 District Court Opinion W.D. Pa. — Chief Judge Cathy Bissoon (Obama) | Elections & Voter Data | Civil Enforcement Suit (compelled production of unredacted statewide voter file) | In June 2025, the DOJ demanded that Pennsylvania turn over its full, unredacted statewide voter registration list (including dates of birth, driver’s license numbers, and last four SSNs for every registered voter) and sued Secretary Schmidt and other officials after they refused to hand over the sensitive fields. On June 27, 2026, Chief Judge Bissoon dismissed the suit, adopting the Sixth Circuit’s Benson reasoning and holding that the voter file is not a “record” subject to Title III, that the DOJ’s demand stated no factual basis as § 20703 requires, and that neither the NVRA nor HAVA entitles the government to voters’ personal identifiers. The NVRA and HAVA claims were dismissed with prejudice; the Civil Rights Act claim was dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, since the DOJ had conceded the records and demand were located in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The court denied transfer to the proper forum, determining that doing so would not promote justice “given the defects suffered by the government’s positions.” The DOJ appealed to the Third Circuit. | “As this Court previously has intimated, “[t]he presumption of regularity that has been previously extended to the [government] that it could be taken at its word—with little doubt about its intentions and stated purposes—no longer holds.” (Court Opinion) “To the extent the DOJ has urged trust, . . . it must understand why its assurances are cold comfort.”(Court Opinion) | Voter-Roll Civil Enforcement Suits | United States v. Scanlan Docket: 1:25-cv-00371 District Court Opinion D. N.H. — Judge Joseph N. Laplante (Bush) | Elections & Voter Data | Civil Enforcement Suit (compelled production of unredacted statewide voter file) | In June 2025, the DOJ demanded that New Hampshire turn over its full, unredacted statewide voter registration list (including dates of birth, driver’s license numbers, and last four SSNs for every registered voter) and sued the state after Secretary Scanlan refused, citing state law. On June 29, 2026, Judge Laplante granted defendant's motion to dismiss and denied the motion to compel as moot, holding that the voter list is not a record subject to Title III of the Civil Rights Act, that the DOJ’s demand failed the Act’s separate requirement of a factual basis, and that HAVA contains no disclosure provision and the DOJ had waived and failed to plead any substantive HAVA violation. The court did not reach the privacy or preemption arguments. The DOJ appealed to the First Circuit. | Voter-Roll Civil Enforcement Suits | | United States v. Board of Elections of the State of New York Docket: 1:25-cv-01338 District Court Opinion N.D.N.Y. — Judge Mae A. D’Agostino (Obama) | Elections & Voter Data | Civil Enforcement Suit (compelled production of unredacted statewide voter file) | In June 2025, the DOJ demanded that New York turn over its full, unredacted statewide voter registration list (including dates of birth, driver’s license numbers, and last four SSNs for every registered voter) and sued the state after the Board of Elections only turned over a public version of the list following a partisan-split decision. On July 10, 2026, Judge D’Agostino granted defendants’ motions to dismiss with prejudice and denied the motion to compel as moot. The court held that a statewide voter registration list is not a record subject to production under Title III of the Civil Rights Act or NVRA. Furthermore, the court held that HAVA contains no disclosure provision, and the government cannot use the discovery process to find “unpled” substantive violations. The court explicitly did not reach the privacy arguments or the technical sufficiency of the DOJ’s factual basis. As of publication, the DOJ has not appealed the decision. | Voter-Roll Civil Enforcement Suits | | United States v. Warner Docket: 2:26-cv-00156 District Court Opinion S.D. W. Va. — Judge Thomas E. Johnston (Bush) | Elections & Voter Data | Civil Enforcement Suit (compelled production of unredacted statewide voter file) | In September 2025, the DOJ demanded that West Virginia turn over its full, unredacted statewide voter registration list (including dates of birth, driver’s license numbers, and last four SSNs for every registered voter) under Title III of the Civil Rights Act. Secretary of State Kris Warner categorically refused, and DOJ sued to compel production of the lists in February 2026. On July 13, 2026, the court granted the Secretary’s motion to dismiss and denied DOJ’s motion to compel the lists. The court held that Title III creates no “special statutory proceeding” limiting judicial review, and that DOJ’s demand letter failed Title III’s procedural requirements and thus failed to state a claim. The court found that DOJ could not deploy Title III outside of potential violations of individual voting rights, which it did not allege. Additionally, Judge Johnston argued that neither HAVA nor NVRA allow the federal government to conduct a line-by-line audit of a state’s voter registration list. The court did not reach the privacy or state law arguments. As of publication, the DOJ has not appealed the decision. | “Given the lack of an adequate basis or purpose, one is left to wonder what the real purpose was for the Justice Department to go to the trouble of filing civil actions like this one all around the nation. Troubling though this question is, it is not before the Court at this time.” (Court Opinion) | Voter-Roll Civil Enforcement Suits | United States v. Koski Docket: 3:26-cv-00042 District Court Opinion E.D. Va. — Judge Roderick C. Young (Trump) | Elections & Voter Data | Civil Enforcement Suit (compelled production of unredacted statewide voter file) | In July 2025, the DOJ demanded that Virginia turn over its full, unredacted statewide voter registration list (including dates of birth, residential addresses, and driver’s license numbers or last-four SSNs for every registered voter) under the NVRA, HAVA, and Title III of the Civil Rights Act. Then-Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Elections Susan Beals refused, and after Steven Koski succeeded her, DOJ sued and filed an amended complaint in March 2026 alleging a single Title III violation. On July 14, 2026, Judge Young granted the motions to dismiss and denied DOJ’s motion to compel, dismissing the suit with prejudice. The court held that Virginia’s statewide voter registration list is not a “record” subject to production under Title III, and that DOJ’s reading would put Title III on a “collision course” with the NVRA and HAVA by criminalizing routine list maintenance. The court also rejected DOJ’s argument that a Title III demand is a “special statutory proceeding” exempt from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court did not reach the sufficiency of DOJ’s written demand or the privacy and preemption arguments. As of publication, the DOJ has not appealed the decision. | Voter-Roll Civil Enforcement Suits | | United States v. Oliver Docket: 1:25-cv-01193 District Court Opinion D.N.M. — Senior Judge Judith C. Herrera (Bush) | Elections & Voter Data | Civil Enforcement Suit (compelled production of unredacted statewide voter file) | In September 2025, the DOJ demanded that New Mexico turn over its full, unredacted statewide voter registration list (including dates of birth, residential addresses, and driver’s license numbers or last-four SSNs for every registered voter) under the NVRA, HAVA, and Title III of the Civil Rights Act. Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver offered only a redacted voter file, and DOJ sued to compel production, filing its complaint and motion to compel together in late 2025. On July 14, 2026, Judge Herrera granted the motions to dismiss and denied DOJ’s motion to compel as moot, dismissing the suit with prejudice. The court held that DOJ’s initial demand letter was facially inadequate under Title III because it failed to state any factual basis for a violation of NVRA or HAVA, no pattern of noncompliance, and no explanation of why unredacted voter information was necessary. The court also rejected DOJ’s “special statutory proceeding” theory, under which the court’s role in considering the merits of the DOJ’s suit would be curtailed, and instead applied the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Because the missing basis was independently fatal, the court did not reach whether the statewide voter registration list is a “record” under Title III, the sufficiency of the stated purpose, or the privacy and state-law arguments. As of publication, the DOJ has not appealed the decision. | Voter-Roll Civil Enforcement Suits | | United States v. Thomas Docket: 3:26-cv-00021 District Court Opinion D. Conn. — Judge Kari A. Dooley (Trump) | Elections & Voter Data | Civil Enforcement Suit (compelled production of unredacted statewide voter file) | In December 2025, the DOJ demanded that Connecticut turn over its full, unredacted statewide voter registration list (including dates of birth, residential addresses, and driver’s license numbers or last-four SSNs for every registered voter) under the NVRA, HAVA, and Title III of the Civil Rights Act. Secretary of State Stephanie Thomas refused, citing state privacy laws. The DOJ sued to compel production, filing its complaint and motion to compel together in January 2026. On July 17, 2026, Judge Kari A. Dooley granted the motion to dismiss and denied the DOJ’s motion to compel. Judge Dooley found that Connecticut’s statewide voter registration list was not a “record” subject to production under Title III. The court further concluded that the DOJ’s reading of Title III to include statewide voter registration lists as records would place the statute in conflict with NVRA and HAVA. As of publication, the DOJ has not appealed the decision. | Voter-Roll Civil Enforcement Suits | | Media Matters for America v. FTC Docket: 1:25-cv-01959 District Court Opinion D.C. Circuit Opinion D.D.C. — Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan (Biden) | Journalists & News Organizations | FTC Civil Investigative Demand | In May 2025, the FTC issued a civil investigative demand (CID) to Media Matters demanding Media Matters’ brand-safety methodology, its communications with advertisers and other media-rating groups, all discovery from its X Corp. litigation, and every financial report it prepares. Media Matters sued to enjoin the CID as retaliatory. On Aug. 15, 2025, Judge Sooknanan granted a preliminary injunction, holding that Media Matters was likely to succeed on First Amendment retaliation given the CID’s timing, its pretextually overbroad scope, and the FTC’s failure to explain why it believed Media Matters had any relevant information pertaining to a government investigation. The FTC appealed to the D.C. Circuit. On October 23, 2025, the D.C. Circuit denied the government’s motion to stay the district court’s preliminary injunction, finding the FTC was unlikely to succeed on its claims and that it failed to demonstrate irreparable harm. On May 1, 2026, the FTC withdrew its appeal at the D.C. Circuit. | “… given the comments by Chairman Ferguson and his colleagues about Media Matters, the timing of the CID, and evidence of pretext, Media Matters is likely to show that retaliatory animus was the but-for cause of the FTC’s CID.” Court Opinion | FTC Civil Investigative Demands | The Endocrine Society v. FTC Docket: 1:26-cv-00512 District Court Opinion D.D.C. — Chief Judge James E. Boasberg (Obama) | Gender-Affirming Care | FTC Civil Investigative Demand | In January 2026, the FTC issued a civil investigative demand to the Endocrine Society demanding the Society’s substantiation materials, all communications behind its clinical Guidelines, its educational and advocacy materials, and its financials, with an unlimited lookback for the 2017 Guidelines and 2020 Position Statement. The Society sued to enjoin the CID as retaliatory. On May 7, 2026, Chief Judge Boasberg granted a preliminary injunction, holding that the Society was likely to prove unconstitutional retaliation under the First Amendment. The court found it could discern no plausible connection between the CID and any commercial-speech violation within the FTC’s authority and that the demand’s sweep into protected academic and medical speech confirmed a likely retaliatory purpose. On June 22, 2026, the FTC withdrew its CID. | “Courts across the country have quashed civil subpoenas issued in furtherance of these investigations as a ‘pretextual’ cover for the purpose of ‘downsiz[ing] or eliminat[ing] all gender-affirming care.’ Court Opinion “[E]ven in the Commission’s own telling, the Court strains to discern a plausible connection between the CID and the suspected violations that concern the FTC.” Court Opinion | FTC Civil Investigative Demands | World Professional Association for Transgender Health v. FTC Docket: 1:26-cv-00532 District Court Opinion D.D.C. — Chief Judge James E. Boasberg (Obama) | Gender-Affirming Care | FTC Civil Investigative Demand | In January 2026, the FTC issued a civil investigative demand to World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) demanding all communications with other organizations and individuals about the development of WPATH’s Standards of Care, the studies and literature it relied on to call such treatment safe and effective, and its future communications. WPATH sued to enjoin the CID as retaliatory. On May 7, 2026, Chief Judge Boasberg granted a preliminary injunction, incorporating the reasoning of his companion Endocrine Society opinion issued the same day and finding WPATH likely to succeed on First Amendment retaliation on materially the same record. Following the ruling, the FTC withdrew its CID. On July 10, 2026, Chief Judge Boasberg denied WPATH’s motion for a temporary restraining order against a separate enforcement action brought by the FTC against WPATH in the Northern District of Texas. Chief Judge Boasberg concluded that the FTC’s suit in Texas is a separate matter that does not conflict with his earlier injunction on the CID, which the FTC had already withdrawn. | “On this preliminary record, with extensive evidence of animus and wafer-thin justifications lacking evidentiary support, [the Court] finds that WPATH is likely to demonstrate a causal link between its protected speech and the FTC’s issuance of the CID.” Court Opinion | FTC Civil Investigative Demands | DHS § 1225(d) Subpoenas Docket: (5:26-mc-80026, 3:25-mc-80284, 3:25-mc-80286, 3:25-mc-80288) N.D. Cal. | Anonymous Speech (ICE/DHS Critics) | Administrative Subpoena under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(d) | In September and October 2025, DHS issued administrative “Immigration Enforcement Subpoenas” under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(d) to Google and Meta demanding identifying subscriber data (account-creation dates, phone numbers, IP logs) for accounts that had criticized ICE or DHS “pursuant to an official, criminal investigation regarding officer safety.” Three users whose Instagram/Meta accounts had been subpoenaed and one individual whose Google account had been subpoenaed each moved to quash in the Northern District of California, arguing the subpoenas exceeded DHS’s statutory authority and violate the First Amendment’s protection against retaliation for protected speech, among other claims. DHS has since withdrawn all four subpoenas. No court ruled on whether the subpoenas were lawful. | DHS Administrative Subpoenas for ICE Critics | | DHS § 1509 Summonses Docket: (3:25-mc-80325, 3:26-mc-80074) N.D. Cal. D.D.C. | Anonymous Speech (ICE/DHS Critics) | Administrative Summons under 19 U.S.C. § 1509 | In September 2025, DHS issued two administrative summonses to Meta under 19 U.S.C. § 1509 — the customs tool limited to third-party summonses for records pertaining to prohibited merchandise or other related requirements — demanding the identity of the users behind certain Facebook and Instagram accounts which document ICE activity, along with their email addresses, account-creation dates, registered phone numbers, sign-up IP addresses, and IP-access logs from Feb. 1, 2025 to the present. After the individual moved, on First Amendment and statutory grounds, to quash and the court ordered Meta to withhold production, DHS withdrew the summonses on Jan. 28, 2026, with DHS agreeing not to reissue or issue materially similar ones. A Reddit user who engages in political speech on the forum moved to quash a different § 1509 summons issued to Reddit for his account on March 12, 2026 seeking identifying subscriber data. DHS withdrew its subpoena later that month. On March 31, 2026, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for D.C. issued a grand jury subpoena to Reddit demanding identifying information on the Reddit user. In June 2026, Chief Judge Boasberg denied the Reddit user’s motion to quash the subpoena. Judge Boasberg also reportedly denied a request to unseal the docket. | DHS Administrative Subpoenas for ICE Critics |