Lawsuits Aim to Bar Armed Federal Officers at Polls

Two federal lawsuits filed in September 2026 are asking a court to block the Trump administration from stationing armed federal officers—particularly Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents—at polling places during the November 3 midterm elections. The suits argue that such deployments would violate a Civil War-era statute and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, intimidating voters and chilling turnout, as NPR first reported.

The legal actions arrive with early voting already underway in some states and against a backdrop of mixed signals from administration officials about whether armed agents could appear at or near polling sites.

The Two Lawsuits

The first case, LULAC v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, was filed September 10 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Its plaintiffs include the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), Common Cause, Common Cause Education Fund, UnidosUS, and the City and County of Denver. The suit invokes 18 U.S.C. § 592, the 1865 law that makes it a felony for a federal officer to bring “troops or armed men” to a place where an election is held, unless the force is needed “to repel armed enemies of the United States.”

According to Common Cause, the suit challenges what the group calls an administration plan to send armed ICE officers into polling places. Virginia Kase Solomón, the group’s president and CEO, said in a statement: “Putting armed officers in polling places is a tactic used by dictators, but we won’t be scared out of exercising our rights. 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 second case was filed Friday, September 18, by a coalition of nine organizations, led by the NAACP. The other plaintiffs are Mi Familia en Acción, OCA – Asian Pacific American Advocates, the National Urban League, Minnesota 8, SEIU, the American Federation of Teachers, the International Union of Painters, and the United Food and Commercial Workers International. That suit rests on Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits intimidation, threats, and coercion of people for voting or attempting to vote.

Both suits ask the court to declare any such policy unlawful and to bar armed federal officers from polling places, drop boxes, and curbside voting sites. Named defendants in the LULAC case include the Department of Homeland Security, Secretary Markwayne Mullin, ICE, and acting ICE Director David Venturella.

What Prompted the Filings

The LULAC suit points to Mullin’s September 1 remarks to Politico, in which he said ICE officers could enter polling places to serve warrants or conduct immigration enforcement. “The only reason why we would be at polling places is if there is a threat to that polling place or we’re serving a warrant on someone that we have been actively tracking down,” Mullin said, adding that “if we’re serving a warrant we will be where we need to be.”

The complaints also cite a series of alleged incidents during primary season: armed agents reportedly swarming the parking lot of a San Antonio polling place on May 20; armed agents at an active polling place in Ventura County, California, on June 2; and agents entering a polling place in Syracuse, New York, on June 23 to confront an election volunteer. They further note that the Justice Department removed longstanding guidance explaining restrictions on federal law enforcement activity at polling places.

As The Guardian reported, the administration has not actually sent armed officers or military members to polling locations. The suits instead target the threatened policy and its chilling effect on voters.

A Climate of Fear

The legal action follows polling released the week of September 14 by UC San Diego, which found that roughly 40 percent of voters believe it is likely ICE agents will be present at voting locations in their area. Voters of color were significantly more likely than white voters to fear that voting could put them at risk of being questioned by immigration authorities—despite being U.S. citizens.

Advocacy groups have framed the stakes in stark historical terms. Janai Nelson, president and director-counsel of the Legal Defense Fund, said: “Using federal law enforcement as a scare tactic to target and intimidate Black communities is illegal and antithetical to the promise of a multiracial democracy that was enshrined in the Voting Rights Act.”

Bethany Li, executive director of AALDEF, drew a parallel to the civil rights era: “We are experiencing a level of voter intimidation like we haven’t seen since the civil rights era, when local governments and the KKK openly intimidated Black voters. This time, it is the federal government ordering ICE and other federal law enforcement to intimidate naturalized citizen voters and immigrant communities.”

Kristen Clarke, general counsel of the NAACP, said the coalition rejects “this administration’s attempt to desecrate our polling sites by converting them into militarized zones through the unlawful deployment of ICE or any other federal agent.”

The Administration’s Position

The Department of Homeland Security has denied that it plans to target polling locations. “ICE is not planning operations targeting polling locations,” DHS said in a statement, while adding that if “an active public safety threat endangered a polling location, they may be arrested as a result of that targeted enforcement action.” DHS also said that “those who are here legally and are not breaking other laws have nothing to fear.”

At a congressional hearing on September 15, FBI Director Kash Patel refused to rule out FBI agents at the polls, saying agents would “follow the law” and “will not shy away” from efforts to ensure elections are safe and honest. “If there’s a reason to go there because there’s been a violation, we will, otherwise we won’t,” Patel said.

A Justice Department spokesperson, Kiersten Pels, said the department “has never said it would send federal law enforcement to polling locations” and called any suggestion otherwise “fearmongering.”

Legal and Political Implications

The central legal question turns on 18 U.S.C. § 592, enacted in 1865 to keep federal military power out of elections. Congress repealed a second exception—one that had allowed armed men to “keep the peace at the polls”—in 1909, leaving only the narrow exception for repelling armed enemies. Legal observers note that no such enemy scenario is at issue here, which is why plaintiffs argue the statute is squarely on their side.

The timing heightens the stakes. Early voting began in some states on September 18, and election officials and judges have reportedly been preparing contingency plans for possible federal interference, including scenarios once considered implausible. Axios reported that states are readying for the possibility of ICE agents at polls “just in case.”

The suits also land amid a broader administration posture on elections. Prior audits and investigations have found noncitizen voting to be extremely rare, undercutting the stated rationale for aggressive enforcement tied to the electoral process. A DHS whistleblower report, reported by NPR on September 14, alleged that the agency’s “Unlawful Voter Initiative” was moving at “breakneck speed” and relying on unreliable data, leading to U.S. citizens being mistakenly flagged.

What to Watch

The immediate question is whether a federal judge will issue an injunction before Election Day on November 3. A ruling in the plaintiffs’ favor would set a clear legal boundary around polling places; a refusal could leave the question of armed federal presence to be litigated after the fact.

Beyond the courtroom, the cases have become a rallying point for civil rights and labor organizations that say the mere threat of armed agents is enough to suppress votes. Denver Clerk and Recorder Paul López, a plaintiff in the LULAC case, said officials have a plan ready if federal agents appear: “It’s not going to be a good day for any ICE agent or any other federal agent or anybody trying to intimidate anybody at the polls.”

With early voting already open and the midterms approaching, the lawsuits will test both the durability of a Reconstruction-era law and the willingness of courts to protect the ballot box from federal intimidation.