A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that Michigan is not obligated to hand over sensitive voter data to the Trump administration, deciding that a 1960 civil rights law does not authorize the Justice Department to compel the state to provide its unredacted voter roll.
The three-judge panel for the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 does not give the DOJ the legal authority to demand dates of birth, partial social security numbers and driver's license numbers from Michigan's complete registered voter list. District Judge Hala Jarbou had issued a similar ruling at the lower court level, and the administration appealed.
Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (D) provided the Trump administration with the public version of Michigan's statewide registered voter list but refused to turn over any additional data, arguing that the administration lacked statutory authority to seek those records. The appeals court agreed.
What the Left Is Saying
Voting rights advocates and Democratic officials praised the ruling as a critical safeguard for both voter privacy and democratic processes. Judge Andre Mathis, a Biden appointee who authored the majority opinion, wrote that Title III was designed to empower attorneys general to investigate allegations of voting discrimination, not to disenfranchise potential voters.
"Back then, the government used this power to ensure that everyone who had the right to vote could freely exercise that right," Mathis wrote for the majority. "But today, the government invokes Title III for an inverse purpose — to ensure that some people have not voted."
Secretary of State Benson called the decision a victory for Michigan voters and their fundamental right to privacy. The ruling protects personal information belonging to millions of registered voters from what Democrats characterize as executive overreach.
What the Right Is Saying
The administration has maintained that it needs access to every state's voter registration lists to verify that only eligible U.S. citizens are participating in elections, an effort framed as protecting election integrity. This position aligns with longstanding Republican concerns about voter roll accuracy and non-citizen voting, though critics note there is no evidence of widespread such activity.
Judge John Nalbandian, who was nominated by President Trump during his first term, dissented from the ruling, arguing that the majority interpretation of Title III was too narrow. The administration has contended that its requests are lawful and necessary for federal oversight purposes.
What the Numbers Show
The Justice Department has filed lawsuits against 30 states and the District of Columbia in attempts to force compliance with its data demands. However, those efforts have been repeatedly rejected at the district court level across multiple jurisdictions.
Cases against California, Oregon, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Arizona, Wisconsin, Maine and Maryland have also been dismissed by federal courts. The ruling in Michigan represents another appellate defeat for the administration's position.
Under Title III, states are required to retain election records for 22 months after a federal election and make them available for federal inspection—but only when the attorney general specifies the "basis and purpose" of the request. The appeals court determined that requirement was not satisfied in this case.
The Bottom Line
The ruling marks another significant legal defeat for the Trump administration's efforts to exert greater control over federal elections ahead of November midterms, where Republicans are hoping to maintain their narrow House majority. Courts in multiple jurisdictions have now rejected similar DOJ demands.
The administration could petition for rehearing en banc before the full 6th Circuit or appeal to the Supreme Court. Legal experts say the circuit splits on this question could eventually force high court resolution. Meanwhile, some states have voluntarily complied with data requests while others continue to resist.