Please follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter
The NAACP and other NGOs filed an emergency motion in the US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia seeking court-imposed restrictions on how the FBI and DOJ may use election materials seized from Fulton County in January.
The filing, brought under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g), does not directly challenge the validity of the search warrant. Instead, the plaintiffs argue that Fulton County voters have protectable privacy and constitutional interests in their personal voter data — including Social Security numbers, dates of birth, driver’s license numbers, and ballot-related information — and therefore qualify as “persons aggrieved” under the rule.
The motion asks the court to limit federal use of the seized materials strictly to the criminal investigation described in the warrant. It seeks an order prohibiting use of the data for purposes unrelated to that investigation, including:
They explicitly request prohibition against use for:
- National voter roll programs
- Immigration enforcement
- Civil enforcement unrelated to the warrant
- Data sharing with other agencies
- Compilation of voter databases
- Public disclosure
The plaintiffs also request access controls restricting review to personnel assigned to the investigation, a detailed inventory of the materials seized, disclosure of who has accessed the records, and a protective order governing storage and handling of the data.
The organizations assert both individual standing — on behalf of Fulton County voters whose data was seized — and associational standing, arguing the seizure undermines voter trust and diverts organizational resources.
The Fulton County records seizure continues to draw intense criticism, with The Atlantic publishing an editorial opinion Monday warning that President Trump is nationalizing elections.
Please follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter
US law, like British CommonLaw assumes a degree of rationality.
(For example, the oft repeated phrase that the Constitution is not a suicide pact.")
You don't pass a law forbidding an act that no one would imagine someone doing.
Don't the suing organizations think they need an explanation or reason for opposing use of materials for obviously legal purposes?
To me "Obstruction!" or "Orange Man Bad" are not explanations.