Judge Tosses DOJ Bid to Hold Up Alaska Senate Results; Election Workers Shielded From Threats; DOJ Eyes Contempt Over Voter List: Nov 2

Better Call Claude Briefing — Nov 2, 2026

On the eve of the November 3 midterms, the courts spent the weekend pushing back on the Justice Department's late moves in the election. A federal judge in Alaska threw out DOJ's bid to hold up certification of the state's Senate race, a judge in San Francisco barred federal officials from threatening election workers over ballots of alleged noncitizens, and DOJ asked Chief Judge James Boasberg to consider contempt against lawyers who analyzed its California voter list. In legal tech, Harvey bought Aida to help firms organize what its AI agents know, and New York's courts told lawyers they can use AI in filings without disclosing it, as long as they verify every word. General news roundup only — not legal advice.

Judge tosses DOJ suit to hold up Alaska's Senate results

On Sunday, November 1, U.S. District Judge Sharon Gleason in Anchorage dismissed United States v. State of Alaska, the Justice Department's lawsuit asking the court to segregate ballots and block certification of the U.S. Senate race if Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan loses to Democrat Mary Peltola. DOJ argued that a second candidate on the ballot, a teacher named Daniel J. Sullivan, was recruited to confuse voters. In a 20-page order, Gleason held that the government lacked Article III standing because it couldn't show a court order would fix its claimed injury: many voters had already cast ballots, and DOJ offered "no workable plan" to set aside ballots for Daniel J. Sullivan and investigate them while keeping votes secret. Ordering ballots segregated so law enforcement could investigate the voters "is not a remedy that this Court can or should order as it clearly violate[s] Alaskans' right to a secret ballot," she wrote. She dismissed without leave to amend, noting the election was two days away. DOJ filed a notice of appeal the same day. Why it matters: the ruling lets Alaska count and certify its closely watched Senate race under normal state procedures, and it adds to a run of rulings rejecting last-minute federal requests to set ballots aside.

Sources: AP News, CBS News, NBC News, The Washington Post, Order dismissing action (PDF via SAN)

Judge bars DOJ and DHS from threatening election workers over ballots

Late Friday, October 30, U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson of the Northern District of California granted a temporary restraining order in a suit filed a day earlier by SEIU, AFSCME, the NAACP, and LULAC. The eight-page order bars the Justice Department and Homeland Security from threatening, intimidating, or coercing state or local election officials or workers into halting the processing of a registered voter's ballot solely because the government alleges the voter is ineligible, and from demanding that officials segregate ballots or purge voters from the rolls. "Although Defendants claim that their actions are designed to halt unlawful voting by noncitizens, their actions are likely to have the effect of interfering with election administration and disenfranchising lawful voters," Thompson wrote. The case followed letters to 57 of California's 58 counties, including one to San Bernardino County listing "1133 likely aliens" and asking officials to turn over Social Security and ID numbers within 48 hours. The order runs through November 16, with a preliminary injunction hearing set for November 13. DOJ appealed to the Ninth Circuit over the weekend, noting Thompson ruled before it filed its first brief. Why it matters: through Election Day and the count that follows, election workers have a court order protecting them from federal threats of prosecution over how they handle ballots.

Sources: NBC News, CNN, CBS News, The Washington Post, Docket (Justia)

DOJ seeks contempt look at lawyers who analyzed its California voter list

In a separate case in Washington, Trujillo v. Department of Homeland Security, Chief Judge James Boasberg on Friday let the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA) see the government's list of more than 20,000 people it calls likely noncitizen voters in California, on the condition that the names stay private and the data be used only to argue standing. On Saturday, the group's lawyers at UCLA's Voting Rights Project filed an analysis finding that more than 40% of the people on the list don't appear in California's current voter file, and identifying 22 people who were likely naturalized U.S. citizens. On Sunday, DOJ defended the list's accuracy, said the report's comparisons had "no relevance" to standing, and asked Boasberg to consider sanctions and a referral for possible criminal contempt. A UCLA spokesman said counsel and their experts "fully complied with the Court's orders," and Boasberg ordered a reply by Monday morning. In the related Democratic lawsuit over DOJ's letters to states, the department argued Sunday that its own string of court losses shows no state has actually changed its election procedures, so the plaintiffs lack standing; Boasberg had said he would rule by today unless DOJ promised not to send more letters before the election. Why it matters: the list is the basis for DOJ's push to set aside California ballots, and these filings put both its accuracy and the limits of court-ordered discovery in front of the judge.

Sources: PBS News (AP), AP News, Democracy Docket, Just Security litigation tracker

Legal tech: Harvey buys Aida; New York courts say verify AI, no disclosure needed

Harvey announced on October 29 that it is acquiring Aida, an AI sales-execution startup co-founded by Glean co-founder Piyush Prahladka and Atish Das Sarma. The founders and Aida's search and machine-learning engineers will join Harvey's product and engineering team to help each law firm build its own "ontology," the organized internal context that tells Harvey's agents how a firm works. Terms weren't disclosed; it is Harvey's fifth acquisition of 2026. Separately, New York's Unified Court System released a seven-page guide for attorneys on the risks of using AI to prepare court papers. Lawyers may use AI without telling the court, but they stay fully responsible for every citation, quotation, factual claim, and legal argument, and the guide urges checking authorities in trusted research tools, reading the sources themselves, and documenting those checks. Individual judges' disclosure or certification rules still take priority. Why it matters: as vendors race to make AI agents more firm-aware, courts are making clear that the duty to verify what those tools produce stays with the lawyer.

Sources: Harvey, Law.com Legaltech News, Legal IT Insider, amNewYork, New York Law Journal

Not legal advice

This Briefing is a general news summary from Better Call Claude (bettercallclaude.org) and is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. For help with your situation, consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.