Federal Judge Strikes Down Noncitizen Voting Statute, Halting DOJ Enforcement Push

A federal judge in Florida has dismissed a criminal case against a Jamaican national, ruling that the 40-year-old federal statute prohibiting noncitizens from voting in federal elections is unconstitutional. The ruling asserts that voter qualifications are a power reserved for states, not Congress, potentially undermining the Trump administration's recent crackdown on noncitizen voting. While the decision applies only to the specific defendant, it challenges the legal foundation of the Justice Department's enforcement strategy.
Key points
- U.S. District Judge David S. Leibowitz dismissed the case against Chelsea Cox, a Jamaican national charged with voting in the 2020 federal election.
- The judge ruled that 18 U.S.C. § 611, which makes noncitizen voting a federal misdemeanor, violates the Constitution because only states can set voter qualifications.
- The Justice Department moved to appeal the ruling, stating it 'deeply disagrees' with the decision.
- The ruling is an 'as-applied' challenge, meaning it currently applies only to Cox, but could serve as precedent for other defendants.
- The decision does not prevent state prosecution or federal deportation actions related to local election law violations.
Background
This ruling follows a significant expansion of federal enforcement against noncitizen voting in 2026. In September, the DOJ charged 16 individuals across multiple states, including Texas and Georgia, as part of a broader crackdown that has resulted in over 1,600 open cases. The current decision contrasts with earlier 2026 rulings that struck down other Trump-era immigration and voting policies, such as the 75-country visa ban and USPS mail-ballot rules, reflecting a pattern of judicial pushback against federal election and immigration measures.
How outlets are covering it
CBS News and NBC News emphasize the ruling as a significant blow to the Trump administration's election enforcement strategy, highlighting the judge's critique of the government's 'weak' legal arguments. Bloomberg Law focuses on the technical legal distinction, noting that Cox brought an 'as-applied' rather than a 'facial' challenge, which limits the immediate scope of the ruling but preserves its potential for future cases. All sources agree that the Justice Department is appealing the decision, though they differ in their framing of the constitutional implications, with Bloomberg Law noting that the ruling does not bar all forms of federal or state prosecution.
Why it matters
The decision challenges the legal basis for a major component of the current administration's immigration and election enforcement agenda. If upheld on appeal, it could invalidate a key tool used to prosecute noncitizens for voting, potentially shifting the burden of such prosecutions to state authorities and limiting federal power over voter qualifications.
What to watch
The Justice Department has indicated it will appeal the ruling. Cox's attorney is working with the government to determine next steps, including potential deportation proceedings. The outcome of the appeal will determine whether the federal statute remains in effect for other defendants or is struck down nationwide.
- Judge says federal law banning noncitizen voting is unconstitutional CBS News
- Judge guts noncitizen voting law used in Trump administration’s election push NBC News
- Migrant Voting Case Tossed, Judge Says Law Is Unconstitutional Bloomberg Law News
- Judge rules federal law banning noncitizen voting is unconstitutional KOMO
- Miami judge rules federal noncitizen voting law violates US Constitution aljazeera.com
Want the full story? Read the original reporting
Read on CBS News