January 16, 2026

Shortly after noon on Wednesday, the assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division, Harmeet Dhillon, posted on social media, “So much winning!!!” She was celebrating the Supreme Court’s 7–2 decision that made it easier for candidates to establish standing to bring lawsuits challenging voting laws.

It was an odd case for her to claim credit for. First, her division had nothing to do with the litigation. By the time Trump took office, the case was already before the Supreme Court.

The solicitor general did file an amicus brief in support of the Republican candidate who brought the case. As a matter of practice, however, while she may have served in a consulting capacity, the lawyers in the solicitor general’s office are famously territorial about what gets submitted to the nine justices.

Even more to the point, the underlying case was a technical one with no obvious partisan advantage. The Court loosened standing requirements for candidates of both parties to challenge voting laws. As a practical matter, over the next three years, this will make it easier for Democrats to challenge anti-voting executive orders signed by President Donald Trump, and will reduce the importance of the Department of Justice as a plaintiff.

Clearly, Dhillon was looking to claim a win wherever she could find one. Her tenure has been marked by uneven performance, and she has staked out positions that have already caused headaches and resulted in several high-profile defeats.

Less than three hours after Dhillon took her strange victory lap, a federal court in California rejected the Trump administration’s effort to block California’s redrawn congressional map. Although she was personally recused from the matter, the lawsuit was filed by lawyers in her division.

The administration was not acting merely as an amicus, but as a plaintiff seeking to undo the California map. Most importantly, the ruling means the new map — one that will yield five additional Democratic congressional seats — will take effect in 2026. While Donald Trump may have little interest in whether congressional candidates have an easy path to challenge voting laws, he is deeply invested in Republicans gaining an advantage through partisan gerrymandering.

Only a few hours later, more bad news arrived for Dhillon. An Oregon federal judge tentatively granted a motion to dismiss the DOJ’s lawsuit seeking to compel access to the state’s unredacted voter registration records.

Obtaining unredacted state voter files has been the centerpiece of Dhillon’s anti-voting agenda. Under her leadership, the Voting Rights Section has sued 23 states and the District of Columbia for this sensitive voter data. Her name appears on these case filings, and she regularly boasts about her commitment to obtaining these records in all 50 states.

This news had to sting. But it paled in comparison to what a federal judge in California delivered the next day.

On Thursday afternoon, 81-year-old federal Judge David Carter not only dismissed the DOJ’s lawsuit seeking California’s voter information but excoriated the department for “threaten[ing] the right to vote, which is the cornerstone of American democracy.”

“The taking of democracy does not occur in one fell swoop; it is chipped away piece by piece until there is nothing left,” Judge Carter wrote. “The case before the Court is one of these cuts that imperils all Americans.”

By the end of the opinion, it was obvious not only that the DOJ was going to lose the case in blistering fashion, but that it would be barred from attempting to reframe its complaint. Unless his ruling is reversed on appeal, the judge made clear he was done hearing from the DOJ on this matter.

As the week comes to an end, Dhillon’s social media post looks comical. Democrats have gained five seats and, courtesy of the Supreme Court, have more opportunities to challenge restrictive voting laws in court. Most importantly, in the first two of the 24 cases the DOJ has brought to obtain voter file data, it has lost in dramatic fashion.

This does not mean we should take our own victory lap. Republicans continue to press forward with their gerrymandering. Florida is the next major state to watch. We are still awaiting the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Louisiana redistricting case — in which the fate of the Voting Rights Act hangs in the balance. The Court is also set to hear another critical election case involving mail-in voting later this spring.

And we must not forget, the battle over voter data privacy is far from over. While we have won the first two cases at the trial court level, more than 20 others remain. Dhillon’s DOJ will almost certainly appeal its defeats, setting the stage for the courts of appeals — and perhaps even the U.S. Supreme Court — to weigh in.

But for now, in a week when so many other aspects of democracy are under attack, it is worth celebrating our victories. As Dhillon would say: SO MUCH WINNING!!!