Public Interest Legal Foundation, Inc. v. Nago

── Public Interest Legal Foundation, Inc. v. Nago ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 28, 2026 Category: General FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PUBLIC INTEREST LEGAL No. 24-6629 FOUNDATION, INC., D.C. No. 1:23-cv-00389- Plaintiff - Appellant, LEK-WRP v. OPINION SCOTT T. NAGO, in his official capacity as the Chief Election Officer for the State of Hawaii, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted October 6, 2025 Honolulu, Hawaii Filed April 28, 2026 Before: M. Margaret McKeown, Michelle T. Friedland, and Jennifer Sung, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Friedland 2 PUBLIC INTEREST LEGAL FOUNDATION V. NAGO SUMMARY* National Voter Registration Act The panel affirmed on different grounds the district court’s dismissal of an action brought by Public Interest Legal Foundation, Inc. (“PILF”), a non-profit organization focused on election integrity, alleging that Hawaii’s State Elections Office’s refusal to provide statewide voter registration data violated the public inspection provision of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (“NVRA”), 52 U.S.C. § 20507(i)(1). Section 20507(i)(1) of the NVRA requires each state to, upon request, disclose records relating to the implementation of certain voter list maintenance activities. In response to PILF’s request for a statewide list of registered voters, Hawaii’s State Elections Office declined to provide a list and recommended that PILF request separate county-level lists from each of Hawaii’s four County Clerks. PILF then filed suit in district court seeking injunctive and declaratory relief requiring Hawaii to provide a statewide voter list. The district court dismissed PILF’s suit for lack of Article III jurisdiction. The panel held that PILF had standing because the bare denial of a request for information under the NVRA causes an injury in fact sufficient to support Article III standing. PILF was not required to show that the denial of information interfered with its core business activities. * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.  PUBLIC INTEREST LEGAL FOUNDATION V. NAGO 3 The panel next held that PILF’s claim became constitutionally ripe when Hawaii’s State Elections Office made it clear that it would not provide the information PILF requested. PILF’s claim was prudentially ripe because it was fit for judicial review and there was no judicial interest in delaying review of PILF’s challenge. Turning to the merits of PILF’s claim, the panel held that the NVRA does not give PILF a right to the information it seeks from the State because a statewide voter list is not a “record[] concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters” within the meaning of § 20507(i)(1) of the NVRA. Covered “records” are those about the implementation of efforts to ensure the accuracy of voter lists, not voter lists themselves. Because the panel concluded that there was jurisdiction but that PILF’s claim failed on the merits, the panel remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss PILF’s claim with prejudice. COUNSEL Joseph M. Nixon (argued), Maureen Riordan, and Noel H. Johnson, Public Interest Legal Foundation Inc., Alexandria, Virginia; William A. Harrison, Harrison Law Center A Law Corporation, Honolulu, Hawaii; for Plaintiff-Appellant. Aaron Schulaner (argued), Genera