Should the lawsuit for Oregon's full voter list be dismissed?
The district court dismissed the case in February 2026. The United States appealed; the Ninth Circuit heard argument in May and has not ruled.
Oregon and the intervenors ask the court to dismiss the case
Oregon argued that none of the three federal laws the government cites gives it a right to the unredacted voter list.
The intervenors filed their own motion arguing the complaint fails to state a claim.
The government argued the federal election laws entitle it to Oregon's complete voter registration list.
Both defendant groups filed replies supporting dismissal.
The court granted both motions, holding that none of the three laws requires the unredacted list, and denied leave to amend.
The United States asks the Ninth Circuit to reverse the dismissal
The government appealed the dismissal and judgment and filed its opening brief.
Oregon and the intervenors each filed answering briefs asking the court to affirm.
The government filed a reply brief in support of reversal.
A three-judge panel heard argument on May 19, 2026 and took the case under submission.
Next step: Ninth Circuit decision
Should the Ninth Circuit take judicial notice of the government's material?Yes: notice granted ·
The government asked the appeals court to take judicial notice of material; the clerk granted the motion in May 2026.
The United States asks the Ninth Circuit to take judicial notice
The government asked the court to take judicial notice of material during the appeal.
The clerk granted the motion for judicial notice.
Should the appeal be expedited and combined with a related appeal?Partly: expedited, not consolidated ·
The Ninth Circuit sped up briefing but declined to consolidate, instead scheduling this appeal with a related one for May 2026.
The United States asks to speed up the appeal and combine it with another
The government filed an emergency motion to expedite and a motion to consolidate with a related appeal.
Oregon and the intervenors each responded to the motion to expedite.
The government replied in support of expediting the appeal.
The court set a faster briefing schedule but denied consolidation, placing the two appeals together on the May 2026 calendar.
May Our Oregon and three voters join the case as defendants?Yes: intervention granted ·
Over the government's opposition, the court let Our Oregon and three Oregon voters intervene as defendants in December 2025.
Our Oregon and three voters ask to join the case
A voter group and three Oregon voters asked to join the case to defend against the demand for voter data.
The government opposed letting the group and voters join.
The proposed intervenors replied in support of their motion.
The court let Our Oregon, Dan DiIulio, Stephen Gomez, and Emma Craddock intervene as defendants.
Should the case pause while federal funding has lapsed?Paused up to 30 days; extension denied ·
The court paused the case for up to 30 days at the government's request, then refused to extend the pause.
The United States asks to pause the case during the funding lapse
The government asked to pause the case because of the lapse in appropriations; the motion was unopposed.
The court paused the case until Justice Department funding returned or 30 days passed, whichever came first.
The United States asks to extend the pause
The government asked again to pause the case because funding had still lapsed; the motion was unopposed.
The court declined to extend the stay, which lifted November 3, 2025, and later set the briefing schedule.