Photo by Library of Congress on Unsplash
Federal appeals court hands Trump administration its biggest voting data defeat yet
A federal appeals court delivered a significant legal blow to the Trump administration on Wednesday, rejecting the Justice Department’s effort to force Michigan to turn over its private voter roll data. The ruling marks the first time an appeals court has weighed in on the administration’s sweeping push to collect voter data from every state in the country. It also represents the most serious judicial rebuke the effort has faced so far.
The 3-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled 2 to 1 against the government. Judge Andre Mathis wrote the majority opinion and was joined by Judge R. Guy Cole Jr. Both were appointed by Democratic presidents. Judge John B. Nalbandian, a Trump appointee from his first term, dissented.
A losing streak that keeps growing
Wednesday’s ruling is not an isolated setback. It is the latest in a long line of courtroom defeats for the Justice Department on this issue. Since the department began demanding voter rolls from states last year, more than half of all states have refused to comply. The department responded by suing 30 states and Washington, D.C. So far, it has lost 9 of those lawsuits and won none of them.
Notably, 5 of the 9 federal judges who have ruled against the Justice Department were appointed by President Trump himself. That detail underscores how broadly the legal community has rejected the administration’s arguments, regardless of political affiliation.
What the court found
The appeals panel took direct aim at the legal foundation the government used to justify its demands. The Justice Department relied on the Civil Rights Act of 1960 to argue it had the right to access state voter data. The court found that the law simply did not require states to turn over such material.
Furthermore, the panel raised a pointed concern about the government’s use of a law originally designed to protect voting rights. The court noted that the administration was essentially deploying that law for an opposite purpose, using it to investigate whether some people had voted rather than to protect anyone’s right to do so.
The ruling affirmed a lower court decision from February, in which Judge Hala Y. Jarbou, also a Trump appointee, had already rejected the administration’s arguments. Judge Jarbou found that neither the Help America Vote Act nor the National Voter Registration Act required states to disclose their voter records, and that the Civil Rights Act did not apply to a statewide computerized voter list.
Critics question the administration’s true motives
The broader context of this legal fight matters. The Trump administration has framed its push for voter data as a necessary effort to root out voter fraud and remove ineligible voters from state rolls. However, the effort has so far produced no substantial evidence of widespread fraud.
Critics argue the campaign is less about election integrity and more about sowing public distrust in the electoral system and creating new barriers for eligible voters. Some of the judicial rulings have reflected similar skepticism. In February, Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai wrote that public statements by the Justice Department had eroded the trust courts traditionally extend to federal law enforcement. He stated that when the department claimed sensitive voter data would remain private, that claim now required thorough scrutiny given the department’s own public statements to the contrary.
What comes next
Wednesday’s appellate ruling sets the stage for a potential escalation to the Supreme Court. The Justice Department did not respond to requests for comment following the decision.
Meanwhile, President Trump is simultaneously pushing for new federal voting legislation. On Thursday he canceled the signing of a bipartisan housing measure to pressure Republicans into passing the SAVE America Act first, a bill critics say would make it harder for eligible voters to cast ballots by requiring proof of citizenship to register.
Source: The New York Times
About the Author
