Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Civic Access Alliance challenges the Federal Civic Enforcement Bureau’s screening policy. The Alliance asks the Court to set aside the policy and stop further demands for state voter rolls. The Bureau asks the Court to deny that broad relief. 2. The record includes a September 18, 2026 memorandum directing Bureau staff to obtain participating states’ voter rolls and compare them with federal citizenship records. It cites general election-enforcement authority and says states should verify flagged records before taking action. It does not describe a specific process for checking whether citizenship information has become outdated. 3. The record also includes a warning to Adrian Velasco that his registration required review following a federal citizenship mismatch. The warning offers an opportunity to respond and does not say his registration was canceled. An intake attachment pairs a copy of Adrian’s reported 2022 naturalization certificate with a Bureau export identifying the flagged entry as originating in 2018. The copies have not been independently authenticated. Issues for determination 4. The issues are whether the Alliance proved that the Bureau’s demands were authorized and met the supplied requirements; whether outdated information caused a legally relevant harm or violation; and whether the record supports setting aside the policy or stopping further demands. 5. The Alliance bears the burden of establishing its claims and the basis for the relief it seeks. The supplied written-demand rule permits demands by the Attorney General or an authorized representative and requires a statement of basis and purpose. The supplied Privacy Act provisions address accuracy, timeliness, relevance, and completeness in records used for individual determinations and reasonable efforts before certain disclosures. The record does not establish all facts necessary to determine the provisions’ coverage or application here. Submissions of the parties 6. The Alliance argues that the 2018 flag predates Adrian’s reported 2022 naturalization and shows that the Bureau’s information may be stale. It acknowledges that it cannot produce a document or witness establishing the Bureau’s specific authorization to issue the demands, or evidence that the warning led to action against Adrian’s registration. It nevertheless seeks to set aside the policy and stop further demands. 7. The Bureau argues that a flag and warning are not a removal decision. It points to the memorandum’s instruction that states verify flagged records before acting and notes that the copies in the intake attachment are not independently verified. The Bureau acknowledges that the record does not establish its specific authorization, but argues that this does not prove every demand was unauthorized or justify a blanket prohibition. Evidence and findings 8. The memorandum is evidence of what the Bureau directed staff to do and of the stated verification step. It is not proof that every state followed that step, nor does it establish the Bureau’s legal authorization to issue demands. The memorandum’s general reference to election-enforcement authority does not identify the Bureau as the Attorney General’s authorized representative or show that particular demands stated the required basis and purpose. 9. The dated comparison is relevant and supports a real concern that the flag may have relied on information predating Adrian’s reported naturalization. Its weight is limited because the copies have not been independently authenticated. The warning itself establishes that review was required and that Adrian had a chance to respond. It does not establish that his registration was canceled, suspended, or otherwise changed. The Alliance expressly confirms that it has no proof of such action. 10. The client statements relayed through counsel describe what the Alliance says Adrian reported, but they are not independently verified documents or admitted witness testimony. They do not fill the gaps concerning the Bureau’s authorization or any resulting state action. The Bureau’s submissions are arguments, not independent proof that every state verified a flag or that every demand was lawful. Reasons 11. On authority for the demands, the supplied rule is conditional: a written demand must be made by the Attorney General or an authorized representative and must state its basis and purpose. The memorandum proves that the Bureau directed staff to obtain voter rolls, but it does not prove the required authorization or the contents of the demands themselves. The Alliance bears the burden and acknowledges that no further proof is available. This issue is therefore not proven. That finding is limited: the record does not establish that these demands were authorized, but it also does not establish that every demand made under the policy was unauthorized. 12. On outdated information and harm, the date comparison supports the Alliance’s concern that the flag may have been based on an older record. The Court does not treat the reported certificate or export as conclusively authenticated, and the comparison alone does not establish that the Bureau used inaccurate information in a covered individual determination or disclosure under the supplied Privacy Act provisions. The missing currency-check process is a legitimate weakness in the memorandum. But the memorandum also directs verification before action, and the warning offers a chance to respond. Most importantly, the record does not show that Adrian’s registration was changed or that any other adverse action occurred. The Alliance has not met its burden to establish the claimed legally relevant harm or a violation on this record. 13. On the requested relief, the memorandum directs comparison and verification; it does not direct states to remove people solely because of a flag. The record does not establish how many people were affected or that the policy necessarily requires action without verification. The Alliance’s inability to establish the Bureau’s authority for the demands is significant, but it does not by itself prove that the entire policy must be set aside or that all future demands must be stopped. The Bureau’s concession that authorization is unproven does not shift the Alliance’s burden or supply the missing basis for its requested broad remedy. The Alliance has not established a narrower remedy supported by the record either. Final order 14. Judgment is entered for the Federal Civic Enforcement Bureau. Civic Access Alliance’s request to set aside the screening policy and to stop further demands under it is denied. No payment or other monetary relief is awarded. This judgment does not find that the Bureau’s demands were authorized; it finds only that the Alliance has not proved a basis on this record for the relief requested. The concerns raised by the dated comparison and the memorandum’s lack of a specific currency-check process remain, but they do not establish the claims or broad remedy sought here.