Sparkle L. Sooknanan

Democracy Forward, a left-leaning litigation group, sued OMB and OPM under the Freedom of Information Act in March 2025 for the agencies’ “RIF and reorganization” plans, the layoff blueprints the Trump administration ordered agencies to prepare. On October 12, 2026, Judge Sooknanan granted the government’s third extension, noting it rested “on the Parties’ joint representation that they are working to narrow the issues.” On October 20, the joint status report said agency leadership “has not yet reached a final determination as to whether any change in Defendants’ position is warranted” and that the issues “remain unchanged.” On October 21 she answered: “That is surprising given the representations in the last 43 Consent Motion.” She added: “The Court granted that extension based on those representations,” and “the Court will not grant any further extensions in this case.” Summary-judgment briefing is pending; there is no merits ruling. Sources: CourtListener docket · Joint Status Report, ECF 50 · Archive copy.

After Judge Sooknanan refused the plaintiffs’ “related case” tag on October 19 (see above), the clerk entered on October 20: “Case randomly reassigned to Chief Judge James E. Boasberg as the case is not related. Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan is no longer assigned to the case.” The docket says the draw was random, and this site does not suggest otherwise. On October 21, Boasberg reset the briefing: a superseding TRO motion by October 22, the government’s opposition by October 26, a reply by October 28, and a hearing on October 30 at 10:30 a.m. (Eastern). That replaced the October 23 / October 30 schedule she had set. The same day the case was reassigned, Marc Elias filed DSCC v. Trump for Senate and House Democratic leaders and marked it related to Trujillo; on October 21 it was assigned to Boasberg. Full details are on jamesboasberg.com. Sources: Trujillo docket · DSCC docket · DSCC related-case notice.

The NAACP sued Harmeet Dhillon, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, under the Freedom of Information Act on October 2, 2026, and filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF 5) on October 5. On October 6, Judge Sooknanan’s minute order noted that the motion “does not (1) address why it did not seek expedited processing of its FOIA request, or (2) engage with the governing standards for the extraordinary relief that it seeks (i.e., a mandatory preliminary injunction in a FOIA case).” On October 19, she ordered the parties “to appear for a hearing on October 22, 2026, at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 14 (in person)” on the TRO motion (10:00 AM Eastern). The same day she ordered DOJ to file any sur-reply by October 21, because the NAACP’s amended complaint (ECF 18) and reply (ECF 20) raise “arguments not raised in its 5 Emergency Motion.” No ruling on the motion has issued. Source: CourtListener docket.

Pedro Trujillo and the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA) filed this voting case against DHS, Secretary Markwayne Mullin and Attorney General Todd Blanche on September 2, 2026, and marked it as related to League of Women Voters v. DHS, No. 25-cv-3501 (her SAVE case), which steered it to Judge Sooknanan. DOJ objected and moved to reassign (ECF 24). On October 19, she granted DOJ’s motion: “Here, the Plaintiffs have not met their burden.” She found that League of Women Voters was no longer “pending on the merits” when the new case was filed, “having been terminated on June 22, 2026.” Quoting precedent, she wrote: “Scrupulous adherence to Local Rule 40.5 is important to avoid any appearance of judge-shopping or favoritism in assignments.” She directed the Clerk “to reassign this case randomly.” The plaintiffs’ emergency TRO/PI motion (ECF 21) is still pending. Source: CourtListener docket.

After her October 9 vacatur, the plaintiffs filed a notice (ECF 53) arguing that the United States’ new lawsuit against California (No. 26-cv-12025, C.D. Cal.) “implicate[s]” her order, and they asked for a status conference. As ordered, DOJ responded on October 19 (ECF 58). DOJ says the California suit comes from DHS’s “independent review” of one state’s voter roll, not a request to every state, and that the suit “is sui generis.” Its key line: “even if DOJ does have a Voter List Maintenance Policy (and it doesn’t), the lawsuit against California looks nothing like the actions taken under that supposed policy.” This is a party filing, not a court order. Source: RECAP PDF · Archive copy.

The Federal Judicial Center’s official biography of Sparkle L. Sooknanan records: born 1983 in San Fernando, Trinidad and Tobago. Source: FJC Biographical Directory.

Bench Receipts’ “America-First Index” gives Judge Sooknanan a “Sovereignty Score” of 11/100 and an “anti-border ruling rate” of 94%. The index labels her “Naturalized” and “Anti-Enforcement / Activist.” These are Bench Receipts’ numbers, not ours, and not a court’s. The index publishes no methodology for how the score or the rate is calculated; the site’s “Methodology” link goes to a general About page that does not explain either figure. Sources: Bench Receipts index · @Pink_Meeces on X.

On October 9, 2026, Judge Sooknanan granted the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment (ECF 29), denied DOJ’s cross-motion and motion to dismiss (ECF 32), and “set[] aside and vacate[d]” the DOJ Civil Rights Division’s nationwide “Voter List Maintenance Policy” (ECF 52). The plaintiffs are Common Cause and four individual voters; the defendants are DOJ and the Attorney General. As the opinion describes it, under the policy the Division demanded statewide voter registration lists (the record shows requests to 49 states), ran them against DHS’s SAVE citizenship database, and urged states to remove voters it flagged as ineligible. The opinion holds that the policy is not authorized by the Civil Rights Act of 1960, the National Voter Registration Act, or the Help America Vote Act; that it is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act; and that it violates the Privacy Act and the Paperwork Reduction Act (ECF 51 at 2–3). The order directs the Clerk to terminate the case and states: “This is an appealable final order.”

Vacatur only. The court declined to reach the plaintiffs’ alternative request for an injunction (ECF 51 at 77). The order does not direct DOJ to delete or return voter data already collected. DHS is not a defendant. Footnote 4 notes that in September 2026 the Supreme Court stayed her own June 2026 SAVE vacatur in No. 26A308 (Sep. 25, 2026), and says neither party argues that 8 U.S.C. §1373 or that stay bears on this case (ECF 51 at 11 n.4). As of October 12, 2026, no notice of appeal appears on the docket. A district-court vacatur is not an appellate holding, and this ruling is not a finding of misconduct by anyone.

On September 25, 2026, the Supreme Court granted the Government’s stay application in No. 26A308, Department of Homeland Security v. League of Women Voters. The order says: “The June 22, 2026 order entered by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in case No. 25–cv–3501 is stayed pending the disposition of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such a writ is timely sought.” That June 22 order is Judge Sooknanan’s ECF 112. The unsigned (per curiam) opinion says the plaintiff groups likely have standing through at least one member (J. Doe 4), but that “their claims likely lack merit,” and that the Court “is likely to reverse the District Court’s holding that the federal defendants violated the Social Security Act, the Privacy Act, and the APA,” because 8 U.S.C. §1373 “likely supersedes restrictions on disclosure elsewhere in the Code.” On harm, it says the order below “prevents the Federal Government from using the program it believes is best suited to the task” and “inhibits the Federal Government’s efforts to assist state and local agencies in the proper administration of the midterm elections.” The opinion recites that a divided D.C. Circuit panel (Srinivasan, C.J., Wilkins, J., and Katsas, J.) had denied a stay, with Judge Katsas dissenting; the dissent dates that denial Sept. 4, 2026 (No. 26-5243). Justice Jackson, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, dissented in writing. A stay is interim relief, not a merits ruling. The D.C. Circuit appeal is still pending.

Stays ECF 112 (June 22, 2026) while the D.C. Circuit appeal (No. 26-5243) and any cert petition are pending. The modified SAVE program can be used again in the meantime. If cert is denied, the stay ends automatically; if cert is granted, it ends when the Court’s judgment issues. Does not decide the appeal. Not a finding of misconduct by the judge.

On September 28, 2026, the federal defendants filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority (Doc 149) in League of Women Voters v. DHS, No. 1:25-cv-03501 (SLS), in Judge Sooknanan’s court. It tells the court that on September 25 the Supreme Court granted the Government’s motion to stay her summary-judgment order (ECF 112) pending appeal, and attaches the Supreme Court’s order as Exhibit 1 (Doc 149-1). It states that as of the evening of September 25, the features of the SAVE “modified system” she had vacated “are now again available to all SAVE users.” It notes that plaintiffs’ “motion to enforce summary judgment order” (ECF 128) remains pending, argues that there is “no longer anything for this Court to ‘enforce,’” and asks that the motion be denied. Signed by Stephen M. Pezzi, DOJ Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch. This is a party’s notice, not a court order. The judge has not ruled on it; the enforcement motion is still pending. A stay is not a merits ruling.

In League of Women Voters et al. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security et al., No. 1:25-cv-03501-SLS (D.D.C.), on June 22, 2026, Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan signed a two-page Order (ECF 112). For the reasons in the Memorandum Opinion (ECF 111), the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (ECF 66) and denied the federal defendants’ motion to dismiss or for summary judgment (ECF 77) and Texas’s motion to dismiss (ECF 97). The Court “vacates and sets aside” (1) the October 2025 DHS Notice of a Modified System of Records for SAVE, 90 Fed. Reg. 48,948 (Oct. 31, 2025); (2) the November 2025 SSA Notice of a Modified System of Records for the Master Files of Social Security Number Holders and Social Security Number Applications, 90 Fed. Reg. 50,879 (Nov. 12, 2025); and (3) the SAVE “modified system” described in the October 2025 DHS notice. The Clerk was directed to terminate the case from the active docket. “SO ORDERED.” Signed Sparkle L. Sooknanan, United States District Judge. A district-court vacatur is not a Supreme Court holding. It is not a House vote.

District summary-judgment vacatur of two SORNs and the SAVE modified system as written in ECF 112. Terminates the active docket. Not a SCOTUS holding. Not a criminal finding. H.Res. 1421 later calls the paper an “injunction” — the docket instrument is a vacatur and set-aside.

On June 25, 2026, federal defendants noticed an appeal of the June 22 judgment (ECF 113) and moved to stay ECF 112 pending appeal (ECF 116). On July 8, 2026, Judge Sooknanan denied the stay in a 23-page memorandum opinion (ECF 123). Opening frame, verified: “This case is about the unlawful creation of a centralized federal database containing the private information of United States citizens.” The opinion recites that the Court had set aside the modified SAVE system and two SORNs as violating the Social Security Act, the Privacy Act, and the APA. It addresses a July 7 order from Judge T. Kent Wetherell II (N.D. Fla.) directing DHS to restore certain SAVE functions for Florida, Iowa, Indiana, and Ohio under a 2025 settlement, writing that Wetherell “erred in significant ways,” that the Florida consent decree binds only the parties there, and that it was not a basis to stay her order as to other SAVE users. A stay denial keeps the June 22 vacatur in place while the D.C. Circuit hears the appeal. It is not a circuit holding. H.Res. 1421 was introduced the next day.

In Media Matters for America v. Federal Trade Commission, No. 1:25-cv-01959-SLS (D.D.C.), on August 15, 2025, Judge Sooknanan granted plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction (ECF 35). For the reasons in the Memorandum Opinion (ECF 34), the Court “ORDERS that the Defendants are enjoined from implementing or enforcing the Civil Investigative Demand served by the Federal Trade Commission to Media Matters on May 20, 2025, and modified on July 7, 2025.” The order remains in effect until further order of the Court. On August 22, 2025, she denied defendants’ motion to stay the PI pending appeal. A preliminary injunction is not a final judgment. The docket later records a stipulation of dismissal and termination in May 2026. Those are the orders. They are not a criminal finding against the FTC.

In L.G.M.L. et al. v. Kristi Noem et al., No. 1:25-cv-02942 (D.D.C.), Judge Sooknanan was on emergency duty over the Labor Day weekend. Minute orders dated August 31, 2025 (compiled PDF hosted by youthlaw.org), granted temporary restraining relief: defendants shall not remove the individual plaintiffs from the United States for 14 days; a later modified order that day covered a putative class of Guatemalan unaccompanied minors in ORR custody as of 1:02 a.m. that day who were not subject to an executable final order of removal. One minute order notes the Court entered an immediate order at 4:22 a.m. A TRO is temporary. It is not a Supreme Court holding and not a class-action final judgment. Later preliminary-injunction papers in the same caption exist; this file treats the August 31 emergency orders as the documented Sooknanan act.

On October 10, 2025 — eight months before she signed ECF 112 — Chief Judge James E. Boasberg signed ECF 23 in League of Women Voters v. DHS, No. 1:25-cv-03501 (caption then (JEB)). He granted the individual plaintiffs’ motion to proceed under pseudonyms, including as against the government, calling that a “rare step,” citing LCvR 40.7(f), and writing that the randomly assigned district judge could reconsider. On June 22, 2026, she signed ECF 112, captioned (SLS). This page does not say he assigned her the case. It does not say he decided the SAVE merits. Two signatures, one civil-action number.

On December 3, 2024, the Senate confirmed Sparkle L. Sooknanan of the District of Columbia to be United States District Judge for the District of Columbia. Roll Call Vote 306, 118th Congress, 2nd Session: Yeas 50, Nays 48 (PN1463). The Federal Judicial Center records commission January 2, 2025. FJC career line: born 1983, San Fernando, Trinidad and Tobago; St. Francis College B.S. 2002; Hofstra M.B.A. 2003; Brooklyn Law School J.D. 2010; clerks to Vitaliano, Calabresi, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor; private practice Washington 2014–2021; Deputy Associate AG 2021–2023; Principal Deputy AAG, Civil Rights, 2023–2024; nominated Feb 27, 2024 (seat vacated by Florence Y. Pan). A 50–48 confirmation is a roll call. It is not a finding about later orders.