Federal judge rules law banning noncitizen voting unconstitutional

Overview

Updated 2 hours ago

A federal judge in Miami dismissed a criminal case against a noncitizen accused of illegally voting in the 2020 election — and in doing so, ruled the federal law banning noncitizen voting unconstitutional. The decision marks the first time a court has struck down 18 U.S.C. § 611, a 40-year-old statute that makes it a misdemeanor for noncitizens to vote in federal elections.

The ruling is a setback for the Trump administration's election integrity push, which has brought at least 60 noncitizen voting prosecutions since January 2025. The judge held that under the Constitution, only states can set voter qualifications, not Congress — meaning the federal government has no authority to criminalize noncitizen voting on its own.

Why it matters

If the ruling's reasoning spreads to other courts, the Justice Department's noncitizen voting prosecutions could collapse — shifting enforcement entirely to state prosecutors.

Questions about this story

Free account needed to ask — your question is kept and asked for you right after sign-up. Answers are public.

No questions yet — be the first to ask.

Key Indicators

Federal court rulings finding § 611 unconstitutional

First time a court has struck down the 1996 noncitizen voting law.

60+

Noncitizen voting charges brought since January 2025

Justice Department prosecutions under Trump administration.

Pending noncitizen voting cases nationwide

At least four other defendants have challenged § 611 on similar grounds.

1996

Year § 611 was enacted

The law had never been challenged on constitutional grounds until recently.

Voices

Curated perspectives — historical figures and your fellow readers.

Ever wondered what historical figures would say about today's headlines?

People Involved

David S. Leibowitz

U.S. District Judge, Southern District of Florida

Presiding judge in USA v. Cox

Chelsea Cox

Defendant, Jamaican national charged with illegal voting

Federal charges dismissed; possible state prosecution or deportation

Organizations Involved

U.S. Department of Justice

Federal Agency

Prosecuting noncitizen voting cases; suffered setback in this ruling

The federal agency that brought the prosecution against Chelsea Cox under 18 U.S.C. § 611.

State of Florida – Governor’s Office

State Government

Retains authority to prosecute noncitizen voting under state law

The state that Judge Leibowitz said retains exclusive authority to prosecute noncitizen voting under state law.

Timeline

June 1996 October 2026

5 events Latest: 3 days ago

Tap a bar to jump to that date

October 2026
Judge strikes down § 611 as unconstitutional
Latest Legal

Judge David Leibowitz dismisses Cox case, ruling only states can set voter qualifications.
3 days ago
October 2025
Chelsea Cox charged
Legal

Justice Department charges Cox with misdemeanor illegal voting in the 2020 election.
October 1st, 2025
January 2025
Trump returns to office
Political

Administration begins aggressive noncitizen voting prosecutions, charging at least 60 people.
January 20th, 2025
November 2012
Cox allegedly begins voting
Legal

Prosecutors allege Chelsea Cox cast ballots in federal elections starting in 2012.
November 6th, 2012
June 1996
Congress enacts 18 U.S.C. § 611
Legal

Law makes it a misdemeanor for noncitizens to vote in federal elections.
June 30th, 1996

Scenarios

Appeals court reverses, law upheld

Possible Resolves by End of 2027

Discussed by: Justice Department and Trump administration officials

The DOJ appeals the ruling to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. If the appeals court disagrees with Leibowitz's federalism reasoning, it could reverse the decision and uphold § 611, allowing prosecutions to continue. The administration has characterized the ruling as judicial overreach.

Other judges adopt reasoning, prosecutions collapse

Possible Resolves by Q2 2027

Discussed by: Lawyers for defendants in the ~45 pending noncitizen voting cases

At least four other defendants have challenged § 611 on similar grounds. If other federal judges follow Leibowitz's reasoning — which they are not bound to do but may find persuasive — the DOJ's noncitizen voting prosecutions could be dismissed across multiple districts, gutting the administration's enforcement push. State prosecutors would then be the only avenue for enforcement.

Supreme Court settles the question

Uncertain Resolves by Q2 2029

Discussed by: Constitutional law scholars and election law experts

The case could eventually reach the Supreme Court, which would definitively resolve whether Congress has authority to criminalize noncitizen voting in federal elections. Given the Court's federalism-friendly majority, it could go either way — with implications for the broader balance of power between Washington and the states over election administration.

Historical Context

2 moments from history that rhyme with this story — and how they unfolded.

1787-1920s

Noncitizen voting in early America

All 13 original states allowed noncitizen voting in some fashion in the early days of the republic. Noncitizen voting was common — including property-owning immigrants who were permitted to vote in federal elections in some states. The practice faded through the 19th century as states gradually imposed citizenship requirements, driven by waves of anti-immigrant sentiment.

Then

States gradually adopted citizenship requirements for voting during the 1800s, eliminating the practice state by state.

Now

By the time Congress enacted § 611 in 1996, all states had long required citizenship to vote — but the constitutional question of who holds the power to set that requirement was never settled until now.

Why this matters now

Leibowitz's ruling draws on this history: if states had always held the power to set voter qualifications, Congress's 1996 attempt to criminalize noncitizen voting was a federal overreach into reserved state authority.

1793

Chisholm v. Georgia (1793) — federalism boundary disputes

The Supreme Court's first major case dealt with whether a state could be sued in federal court. The decision created a political firestorm and led to the 11th Amendment, which reasserted state sovereignty. The dispute defined how far federal power could reach into areas the Constitution reserved to states.

Then

Congress proposed and states ratified the 11th Amendment over two years, overturning the Court's decision.

Now

The episode cemented the principle that the federal government operates within enumerated powers, and that areas not delegated to Washington remain with the states — the same structural argument at the heart of the § 611 ruling.

Why this matters now

Leibowitz's ruling rests on this same structural principle: the Constitution enumerates Congress's powers over elections (times, places, manner) but never grants it power to set voter qualifications, which are reserved to states.