The Justice Department is asking a federal judge to consider penalties against an immigrant rights group, saying it used restricted government information for purposes the court had not allowed.
The dispute concerns a list of approximately 21,000 people the Trump administration suspects are noncitizens registered to vote in California. Being on the list does not, by itself, prove someone is a noncitizen or voted illegally.
Judge James Boasberg allowed the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, known as CHIRLA, to examine the list for a limited reason: to determine whether its members were included and could therefore challenge the government’s actions in court. The judge prohibited disclosure of individual names and restricted how the information could be used.
CHIRLA’s UCLA researchers then submitted findings that went beyond identifying the group’s members.
They reported that about 42% of the names could not be matched to California’s current voter file. They also said at least 22 entries matched CHIRLA members who had become U.S. citizens through naturalization. Those findings are the researchers’ conclusions, not facts established by a judge.
The Justice Department says the broader analysis crossed the line. Its position is that the group received permission to show why its own members could sue—not to conduct a general public attack on the government’s list.
DOJ asked Boasberg to remove portions of the filing, require the group to explain its conduct and consider penalties. It also suggested a referral for investigation into possible criminal contempt, which involves disobeying a court order.
CHIRLA’s side denies breaking the rules. A UCLA Voting Rights Project spokesperson said its attorneys and experts complied with the court’s instructions. The group argues that finding eligible citizens among its members on the list helps demonstrate why its lawsuit should proceed.
The central question is straightforward: Did the group stay within the judge’s limits, or use its access to pursue a broader argument it had not been authorized to make?
The reporting reviewed does not establish that Boasberg has imposed penalties or found anyone in contempt. Those are actions the Justice Department is requesting—not punishments the court has already ordered.
