A federal judge expressed extreme skepticism Wednesday that the Trump administration is entitled to highly personal information about every voter and former voter in Oregon, given state and federal privacy protection laws.
Instead, the Eugene-based judge indicated he is inclined to limit Trump officials, at least for now, to getting the same voter list that any member of the public can obtain for a fee — which does not include full dates of birth, driver’s license numbers or partial Social Security numbers.
U.S. District Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai said in court late Wednesday that his “tentative” decision is to entirely dismiss the federal government’s lawsuit seeking highly personal information about every Oregon voter. He acknowledged he could change his mind, but he said “I feel we have done justice” by keeping the most sensitive voter information private.
That would mark a big loss for the feds, who have demanded unredacted voter rolls from 40 states and sued more than 20 of them that have refused to fork over personal details about every voter. The 2025 Trump case against Oregon is the first to reach a federal judge’s deliberation and tentative decision.
After hours of legal arguments Wednesday, Kasubhai appeared to side with lawyers for the state of Oregon and labor union advocacy group Our Oregon that the Federal Privacy Act of 1974 precludes the U.S. government from collecting a massive data dump of information on its own citizens — and Trump officials don’t need the highly personal information about voters to see if Oregon is doing a “reasonable” job of maintaining its voter rolls, as another federal law requires.
The U.S. Department of Justice failed to set out a factual basis for why it suspects Oregon of not doing enough to accurately maintain its voter rolls, the judge said. Federal law requires states to do a “reasonable” job of removing people who have died or moved from its voter rolls, the judge acknowledged. But he agreed with lawyers for the state and its legal allies who asserted that there were other, better avenues for federal officials to detect if Oregon is failing to do that job than getting access to highly private data on voters.
Secretary of State Tobias Read was a primary target of the Trump administration’s efforts to pry more information about the state’s voters and he expressed delight about the judge’s provisional ruling.
“This is a big win for Oregonians’ privacy and the rule of law,” he told The Oregonian/OregonLive Wednesday evening. “The federal government tried to abuse their power to force me to break my oath of office and hand over your private data. I stood up to them and said no. Now, the court sided with us. Tonight, we proved, once again, we have the power to push back and win.”
Thomas Castelli, senior assistant attorney general in Oregon since 2023, led the arguments for the state. Branden Lewiston, who worked in the U.S. Department of Justice under President Joe Biden and now is in private practice in Washington, D.C., argued on behalf of Portland-based Our Oregon, which intervened in the case and sided with the state.
James Thomas Tucker, a longtime voting rights attorney who now works for the U.S. Department of Justice, led the arguments for the Trump administration.
Dan Rayfield, Oregon’s Democratic attorney general since January 2025, issued a statement expressing relief at the tentative decision.
“Today’s hearing puts a spotlight on a real question: Why does the Trump administration want access to Oregonians’ most private voter information in the first place? Oregon can protect elections without putting people’s personal information at risk. We look forward to the court’s final ruling.”
Kasubhai, a Biden nominee who was confirmed as a federal district judge in November 2024, did not indicate when he plans to issue his final written order.