A Biden Judge Says Congress Can’t Ban Noncitizen Voting. DOJ Is Appealing.

A federal judge in Miami has thrown out a 30-year-old law that makes it a crime for noncitizens to vote in federal elections. The Justice Department moved right away to appeal.

U.S. District Judge David Leibowitz, an appointee of President Biden, dismissed the case against a Jamaican national accused of voting illegally in 2020. In a 31-page order, he ruled that the federal ban itself is unconstitutional, CBS News reported.

“Congress does not have the constitutional power to enact this statute,” the judge wrote, according to CBS.

The case behind the ruling

The defendant, Chelsea Cox, came to the United States on a tourist visa and stayed after it expired, according to Reuters. Prosecutors say she used a fake birth certificate to get a Florida driver’s license, registered to vote in 2012, and voted in federal elections through 2020. Only the 2020 vote was recent enough to be charged.

She was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 611, passed in 1996. It makes voting by a noncitizen in a federal election a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in prison.

Federal prosecutors argued that Congress has the power to pass the law because it controls immigration, foreign affairs and protection against foreign meddling in elections, according to RedState’s account of the case.

The judge disagreed. He held that the Constitution gives the states, not Congress, the power to decide who is qualified to vote. He also said the Justice Department’s defense rested on a Supreme Court case he called “very, very weak,” CBS reported.

“Florida can and does”

Here is the twist: Judge Leibowitz did not say noncitizens may vote. He said it is up to the states to ban and punish it.

“Can the State of Florida prohibit and punish the exact conduct Defendant Cox allegedly engaged in here? Florida can and does,” he wrote, as quoted by Reuters.

In other words, the judge believes Florida, not federal prosecutors, should handle cases like this one.

The case also drew an unusual supporter for the defense. Paul Clement, who served as solicitor general under President George W. Bush, filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that Congress went beyond its constitutional limits when it passed the law, CBS reported.

Why this matters for 2026

This appears to be the first court ruling to strike down the statute, according to CBS. It lands one month before the November midterm elections.

The stakes are real. The Justice Department has charged at least 60 people with illegal voting by noncitizens since President Trump returned to office in January 2025, Reuters reported. About 45 similar cases are still pending around the country. RedState noted that at least four other defendants are making the same constitutional challenge.

A ruling from one district judge does not erase the law nationwide. But if other judges follow his lead, those federal cases could start falling apart. The appeal will now go to a higher court.

The bottom line

Americans broadly agree on one simple point: only citizens should choose America’s leaders. Congress wrote that into federal law in 1996, and it has stood for three decades. Now one Biden-appointed judge says the law was never valid, just as the Trump administration is finally enforcing it.

Conservatives respect states’ rights, and the judge is right that Florida bans noncitizen voting too. But a federal election picks federal officials. A president, a senator or a member of Congress serves the whole nation, and every legal voter is harmed when an illegal ballot cancels out their vote. Leaving enforcement to the states means a noncitizen’s vote in a lax state can be met with a shrug. It is reasonable for the federal government to protect its own elections, and the Justice Department is right to fight this ruling.

This case also shows why election integrity laws matter. If courts start pulling federal tools away, the burden falls on states to check citizenship and prosecute cheaters. Readers should watch the appeal closely and ask their state lawmakers a simple question: if Washington’s ban is struck down, is our state ready to enforce its own?