Library.

“In a federal lawsuit involving Connecticut’s statewide voter registration list, U.S. District Judge Kari A. Dooley denied the U.S. Department of Justice’s request for Connecticut’s unredacted voter rolls, ruling that Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 does not cover Connecticut’s statewide voter registration list.”

Court records and official summaries show that Judge Kari A. Dooley rejected the DOJ’s effort to obtain Connecticut’s unredacted statewide voter registration list. The ruling held that Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 does not reach that statewide list because it is created by the state, not simply received and kept as a covered record.

“The United States Department of Justice issued an opinion indicating that the federal government may reduce enforcement of protections related to the United States Supreme Court’s Olmstead v. L.C. decision.”

An official June 18, 2026 DOJ Office of Legal Counsel opinion supports this claim. The opinion narrows the federal interpretation of Olmstead-related integration protections and therefore indicates the government could take a less aggressive enforcement approach. It does not itself repeal Olmstead or prove enforcement has already been reduced.

“In 2001, Microsoft and the U.S. Department of Justice reached an antitrust settlement that required Microsoft to change certain business practices, share technical information with third-party software developers, allow flexibility in configuring Windows, and submit to oversight.”

The record supports the substance of this claim. DOJ and court documents from 2001 show the settlement required conduct changes, interoperability disclosures, OEM flexibility in how Windows presented competing middleware, and compliance oversight. The main caveat is wording: the disclosure duty covered specific interfaces and related interoperability information, not all technical information broadly.

“In 1998, the United States Department of Justice filed an antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft Corporation in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.”

Official Justice Department records confirm that the United States filed an antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft on May 18, 1998, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Later court documents and appellate records are consistent with that filing history. Parallel state lawsuits were separate and do not change the accuracy of the federal claim.

“U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi asked a federal judge in New York to deny the appointment of a special master to monitor the release of the "Epstein files."”

Reporting from Reuters and other outlets shows the Justice Department asked a New York federal judge to reject a request for a special master over the Epstein files, and Pam Bondi was a signatory to that filing. The key caveat is that the request was made jointly with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, not by Bondi alone. That does not alter the substance of the claim.

“On August 22, 2025, the United States Department of Justice produced approximately 33,000 pages to the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and those pages were already public.”

The date, sender, recipient, and approximate size of the production are well-supported by official records and contemporaneous reporting. The only meaningful caveat is that the tranche was not literally all already public: credible reports indicate a small portion, roughly 3%, included newly disclosed material. The overall takeaway remains that DOJ mostly turned over already public or previously shared records.

“The United States Department of Justice has released only about 1% of the documents commonly referred to as the "Epstein files" and is withholding the remaining documents.”

Available evidence contradicts the “about 1%” figure. DOJ records say nearly 3.5 million responsive pages have been released out of about 6 million identified pages—roughly 58%, not 1%. Claims using a much lower percentage rely on storage-size comparisons rather than document or page counts, and the unreleased material includes duplicates, privileged records, privacy-protected information, and nonresponsive material rather than a single withheld trove.