'Voter Suppression, Plain and Simple': Lawsuit Aims to Stop Trump From Sending ICE to Polling Sites

Noncitizens are barred from voting in federal elections, and a coalition of rights groups suggested Thursday that President Donald Trump's plan to have armed immigration agents enter polling places isn't aimed at cracking down on unlawful immigrants at all.

"Sending armed ICE officers to polling places is not immigration enforcement—it is voter suppression, plain and simple,” said Janet Murguía, president and CEO of UnidosUS, referring to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

UnidosUS joined Common Cause, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), and the city and county of Denver, Colorado in filing a lawsuit to stop the administration from authorizing ICE deployments in polling places during the 2026 elections, in which early voting will soon be underway in a number of states.

The groups filed the legal challenge in the US District Court for the District of Columbia several days after Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said ICE could be sent to polling sites to address "specific threats."

Earlier this year, the Department of Justice ended long-standing guidance on why federal law enforcement activity is restricted at polling places, and ICE agents conducted enforcement actions at voting sites in Texas and New York.

clMullin said in July that states could be denied federal aid if they refuse to comply with election directives from the Department of Homeland Security related to the administration's baseless claims that undocumented immigrants engage in widespread "voter fraud."

A Reuters analysis this year found that only 73 people in the last three decades have ever been convicted of illegally voting as noncitizens. The right-wing Heritage Foundation has proidentified about 100 cases of proven noncitizen voting dating back to 2000—representing around 0.0001% of total votes cast over that time.

In their lawsuit, the groups argued that Mullin's plan to deploy ICE agents to voting sites violates the nationwide prohibition against armed federal agents in polling places, which was first enacted during the Civil War out of concerns "about executive overreach, and the risk that the federal executive would use armed force to interfere in state and federal elections."

The policy also violates "the federal prohibition on arbitrary and capricious government action," said the groups.

The administration is pushing to deploy ICE to polling places as voters express widespread disapproval of numerous Republican policies, including ICE's violent crackdown in cities such as Minneapolis and Chicago, Trump's war on Iran, and tariffs that have worsened the cost-of-living crisis the president pledged to solve.

Virginia Kase Solomón, president and CEO of Common Cause, said that Americans will not be "silenced by the administration’s continuous efforts to meddle with our elections."

“Putting armed officers in polling places is a tactic used by dictators, but we won’t be scared out of exercising our rights,” said Kase Solomón. “No American should ever have to walk past armed federal law enforcement just to cast a ballot, yet this administration has adopted a policy that allows exactly that."

The lawsuit emphasizes that with ICE having unlawfully detained more than 170 US citizens and killed at least three citizens since Trump took office, Americans "may reasonably fear interactions with ICE."

“All Americans—including Latino voters—have a constitutional right to cast their ballot without fear of interrogation, detention, or family separation," said Murguía. "This case is about protecting voters, preserving confidence in our elections, and ensuring that every eligible voter can participate free from intimidation.”

At the Democracy Project at New York University School of Law, poSoephen Richer and Gina Goldenberg cautioned that the threat of ICE agents potentially being at the polls could serve as a voter suppression tactic and "real voting deterrent" in itself.

"ICE-at-the-polls is something that American elections are well-equipped to handle," they wrote. "The highly decentralized nature of our elections, plus the massive growth of early voting, combined with a strong legal framework, would make widespread ICE interference a heavy lift for the federal government. Ironically, the real threat of ICE-at-the-polls could be in its potential voter-deterrent effect.

"It’s not too far-fetched to imagine a newly naturalized, brown-skinned American in Michigan who only casually follows political news, but hears that ICE might be at the polls," they added. "This person knows he’s in a higher-risk category for being mistakenly apprehended by ICE, and he wonders, 'Why risk it?'"

All voters, said Juan Proaño, CEO of LULAC, "should be able to cast their ballots without fear of intimidation by armed ICE officers at polling places."

“The right to vote is foundational to our democracy," he added, "and yet this administration continues in its endless attempts to weaken the very institutions it is entrusted to protect."