Written Monday 2026-11-02, about 15:00 UTC. Primary source: Judge Sharon Gleason's 20-page Order Dismissing Action in United States v. State of Alaska, No. 3:26-cv-00376-SLG (D. Alaska), ECF No. 79, filed 11-01. I read the order itself. For the appeal and reaction I read AP, NPR, CNBC and the Alaska Beacon; I have not read DOJ's notice of appeal or any Ninth Circuit briefing.
I wrote here Saturday that the case came down to "what a court has to decide by Monday." The court decided on Sunday, and it did not reach the question the case was about.
Judge Gleason dismissed the Justice Department's suit to block certification of Alaska's Senate race. She found the United States had not shown it had standing to be in federal court, because it had not shown a court could give it the relief it asked for. DOJ filed a notice of appeal the same evening.
What was decided, and what wasn't
Decided: the suit is out for lack of Article III standing, on redressability. All three motions to dismiss were granted — the State's, the Peltola campaign's with the DSCC, and the League of Women Voters'. The dismissal is without prejudice, which is what a court must enter when it finds it lacks jurisdiction, and without leave to amend; the court directed judgment entered and the case closed.
Not decided: whether the National Voter Registration Act's "purposes" clause creates the duties DOJ said it did. Standing comes first, so the court never reached the merits. Nor does the ruling touch the criminal investigation or Gov. Dunleavy's state probe.
Why the remedy failed
Redressability is the third part of standing: the injury has to be one a favorable ruling would likely fix. Gleason quoted the rule that "even where a plaintiff requests relief that would redress her claimed injury, there is no redressability if a federal court lacks the power to issue such relief."
The only relief in the amended complaint was to enjoin certification of a result "impacted by voter confusion," pending an investigation into whether votes for Daniel J. Sullivan "were meant" for the senator. The court found the mechanism impossible on its own terms:
- Many ballots are already cast and commingled, and "cannot now be segregated or the identity of the person who cast each ballot ascertained."
- "More fundamentally, the United States provides no workable plan as to how it proposes to segregate ballots cast for Daniel J. Sullivan on Election Day and then conduct a court-ordered unspecified 'investigation' of those ballots in a manner that would preserve voter secrecy."
- DOJ's answer to this, in its opposition, was one sentence — that "Defendants can take measures, including but not limited to the segregation of ballots," and the court "can order them to do so." The court said DOJ offered "no rebuttal to the concerns regarding preservation of the secrecy of voting."
- It likened the case to Yazzie v. Hobbs (9th Cir. 2020), where a deadline that could not be applied to voters who "cannot be readily identified" failed redressability: "As in Yazzie, the relief requested here by the United States is 'infeasible.'"
Two further points:
- Preservation doesn't do the work. DOJ argued its only immediate request was to preserve and segregate ballots. The court noted that request "is nowhere in the Amended Complaint" — it first appeared in the preliminary-injunction filing — and that preserving ballots would not redress anything anyway, because Alaska law already keeps federal-election ballots for 22 months.
- Purcell. Courts "should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election." A segregation-and-investigation order, the court said, "would likely result in voter 'confusion and consequent incentive to remain away from the polls,'" and "such late-breaking changes to the election rules are strongly disfavored."
What the court read back from DOJ's own filings
The order quotes two of DOJ's own statements against it:
- The U.S. Attorney for Alaska, at an October 30 press conference: federal and state law enforcement are "working to make sure that your vote counts in a way that you meant and intended it to count," and the case is "focused on preserving the ballots," "so Alaska can determine" the winner.
- DOJ's own preliminary-injunction filing, conceding that segregating "all ballots ranking Daniel J. Sullivan … will be impossible after Election Day."
Gleason read these as anticipating "some sort of special intervention on or before Election Day," which is part of why she found the plan unworkable. It was not a neutral preservation request; it was a live mechanism she had no lawful way to order.
The same theory lost in California days earlier
The order cites the Ninth Circuit's 10-26 decision in United States v. California, DOJ's parallel request to set aside about 20,000 vote-by-mail ballots. Two judges concurring there wrote the same two things: DOJ offered "no workable plan … as to how the remedy it seeks could be accomplished in practice without potential catastrophic consequences," and Purcell barred the injunction because it would "transform California's election rules for an election that is already underway." AP reported Friday that the appeals court rejected that request. Same suit, different state's name.
What's next
- The appeal. DOJ filed a notice of appeal Sunday evening. In its statement it said the judge "dismissed the case on procedural grounds" without disputing its claim — an accurate description of a standing dismissal, which reaches no merits.
- The election. Alaskans vote Tuesday, 11-03. Ranked-choice tabulation may take days.
- The criminal probe. U.S. Attorney Michael Heyman's investigation continues; the dismissal does not touch it.
- The state probe. Gov. Dunleavy's investigation continues, and he has said that "if we find out there's wrongdoing, and if that means that the certification then is stopped or changed, then that's what happens." One door — the federal court's — is closed on this route; the governor keeps another open.
- Still unseen: the Alaska Supreme Court's promised full opinion on Daniel J. Sullivan's ballot access, which the order notes has not issued.
A correction to Saturday's piece
Saturday's piece said both complaints wrongly called "Republican Gerald Heikes" the 1.1% fourth-place finisher, and that the 1.1% belonged to Democrat David Leslie. That was my error, not the filing's. The amended complaint's ¶33 says "Republican Gerald Heikes received 1.1% of the vote," and it is accurate: Heikes is a Republican, he took 1.05%, and he is on the general-election ballot. Democrat David Leslie placed fourth at 1.11% and withdrew before the 08-31 deadline, which is how Heikes advanced in his place. The only error in ¶33 is the one the court flags itself, in a footnote: the primary date, given as August 28; it was August 18. I have corrected the earlier piece.
Sources
- The order, ECF No. 79 (copy at Election Law Blog); docket, United States v. State of Alaska
- Election Law Blog on the appeal; Bloomberg Law, 11-01
- AP, 11-01; NPR, 11-01; CNBC, 11-01
- Alaska Beacon on the primary field; Ballotpedia
- Yazzie v. Hobbs, 977 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 2020)