Miami Federal Judge Dismisses Noncitizen-Voting Charge and Rules 1996 Federal Ban Unconstitutional as Applied; Justice Department Files Appeal
On Oct. 1, Judge David Leibowitz ruled that only states, not Congress, may decide who is qualified to vote, so 18 U.S.C. § 611 cannot be used to prosecute Chelsea Cox, a Jamaican national accused of voting in 2020. The Justice Department filed a notice of appeal to the 11th Circuit on Oct. 2.
Two filings in two days, and one unchanged rule
On Thursday, Oct. 1, 2026, a federal judge in Miami issued a 31-page order. It dismissed a misdemeanor charge against Chelsea Cox, a Florida resident from Jamaica [1][13]. She was charged in October 2025 with voting in the 2020 presidential election while not a U.S. citizen [1][6].
U.S. District Judge David Leibowitz held that the law used against her is unconstitutional as applied to her case [1][6]. That law is 18 U.S.C. § 611. It makes it a federal crime for a noncitizen to vote in a federal election. Congress passed it in 1996 [2][4].
The next day, Friday, Oct. 2, the Justice Department filed a notice of appeal to the 11th Circuit in Atlanta [5]. A department spokeswoman said it "deeply disagree[s] with the ruling" [1].
Here is the odd part. Nobody in the case says noncitizens should be able to vote. The fight is over who gets to punish them when they do.
What Cox is accused of, and what the judge did not say
Court filings say Cox entered the U.S. as a tourist in 1999 and overstayed her visa. She later used a fake U.S. Virgin Islands birth certificate to get a Florida driver's license. She registered to vote in 2012 [3].
The judge did not say noncitizens may vote. He wrote that every state already requires citizenship. He also wrote that Florida "can and does" prosecute people who break that rule [3][7].
Florida's own laws cover what Cox is accused of doing [3][7]. So the ruling doesn't open any door at the ballot box. It affects which government can bring the charge.
Why the judge says Congress has no say
Leibowitz's argument starts with the Constitution's text. Article I says voters for the House must meet the qualifications for voting for the larger house of their state legislature. The 17th Amendment uses the same rule for Senate elections. Article II lets each state legislature decide how its presidential electors are chosen [6][9].
In his reading, that ties federal voter qualifications to state law. He wrote that "the text, structure, and original public meaning of the Constitution" show Congress lacks this power [1]. Reports of the order also quote him calling § 611 a "voter qualification statute" [6].
He leaned on the Supreme Court's 2013 decision in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that opinion. It split election power in two. Congress may regulate HOW federal elections are run. States decide WHO may vote [6][10].
The court also appointed Paul Clement and Chadwick Harper as outside advisers, known as amicus curiae. They argued that the statute exceeds Congress's power. They pointed to its "unless" clause, which leaves noncitizen voting in state elections to the states [7].
The government's case, and the precedent behind it
The Justice Department argues that the Constitution gives the federal government "a significant role in overseeing" federal elections [1]. Its argument has three parts.
First, the Elections Clause lets Congress regulate how federal elections are run. That has long included anti-fraud laws. Second, Congress controls immigration and foreign affairs. Whether a noncitizen may help choose the national government falls within that power [1][7].
Third, a federal ban doesn't invent a new qualification. It enforces the citizenship rule every state already has. On this view, it protects the integrity of Congress's own elections.
There is precedent on that side. In Oregon v. Mitchell (1970), the Supreme Court let Congress set an 18-year-old voting age for federal elections, but not for state ones [11]. The judge distinguished the case. It produced no majority rationale, and Scalia called it "of minimal precedential value" [11].
Each side's reading is plausible on its own terms. The Supreme Court has drawn the line sharply in one era and let Congress cross it in another [10][11].
Why one ruling carries so much weight
The order binds only Cox's case. Other judges are free to disagree. The judge also declined to rule on a facial challenge, which would claim the law is invalid in every case [2][6]. An as-applied ruling says only that the law can't be used against this person on these facts. So § 611 stays on the books.
Still, the stakes run past one defendant. The Washington Times reports about 45 similar federal cases are pending nationwide. It says at least four other defendants have raised the same challenge. That count wasn't independently confirmed [4].
The Trump administration has made noncitizen voting a centerpiece of its election-integrity push before the November midterms [2][8]. It has an interest in keeping a 30-year-old federal tool that supports those prosecutions [4][8].
If the 11th Circuit adopts the judge's theory, federal prosecutors in Florida, Georgia and Alabama would lose § 611. Enforcement would shift to the states [4][5].
The reasoning also reaches the SAVE America Act. The House passed that bill 218–213 on Feb. 11, 2026. It would require federal citizenship checks for voters. The vote tally is unverified. The libertarian Cato Institute says the ruling has "big implications" for the bill [6].
Republican backers of the bill say a federal crime is the uniform backstop that makes the rule real in all 50 states. They point to Cox's alleged fake birth certificate as proof that enforcement gaps exist [2][3].
Democrats and voting-rights advocates say the Constitution has always left voter qualifications to the states. They note that states already ban and prosecute noncitizen voting, so no gap exists [3][12]. The Conversation made that argument about the SAVE Act months before the ruling [12].
Critics of the bill say it would burden eligible citizens with new paperwork [6]. Some left-leaning coverage treats the § 611 prosecutions as a political push ahead of the midterms [8].
Same order, different headlines
The headlines split along familiar lines. CBS wrote that the judge "says" the law is unconstitutional. Its story noted the ruling covers only Cox and carried the Justice Department's objection [1].
Fox News first put "Activist judge" in quotation marks. The Washington Times called him a "Biden judge" in two headlines. Both stress his appointment by President Joe Biden [2][4][5]. The Gateway Pundit's headline began "COMMIES IN THE COURT."
Fox's "cannot bar noncitizens from voting" can suggest noncitizens may now vote. The judge said states can and do ban it [2][3]. The Times did report two useful facts others skipped: the Friday appeal and the 45 pending cases [4][5].
On the other side, NBC said the judge "guts" the law and tied it to "Trump administration's election push" [8]. Pakistan's Geo News said he "strikes down" the "Trump administration's ban" [11]. Both verbs overstate an as-applied ruling, and the law dates to 1996.
Al Jazeera ran a mostly straight account. It added the fake birth certificate and the 2012 registration, and set the case inside the administration's midterm push [3].
Cox's defense argued Congress lacked the power to pass the statute. The court agreed as applied to her [1][13]. The charge is dismissed for now. It could come back if the 11th Circuit reverses [3][5].
What happens there will decide whether federal prosecutors keep § 611 in three states. If the court rules against the government, the question may head toward the Supreme Court [4][6].
Summary
A federal judge in Miami threw out a criminal charge against Chelsea Cox on Thursday, Oct. 1, 2026. Cox is a Florida resident from Jamaica. She was accused of voting in the 2020 presidential election while not a U.S. citizen[1][3]. U.S. District Judge David Leibowitz ruled that the federal law used against her, 18 U.S.C. § 611, is unconstitutional as applied to her case[1][6]. That law makes it a crime for a noncitizen to vote in a federal election. Leibowitz was appointed by President Joe Biden[3]. The Justice Department filed a notice of appeal the next day, Friday. The case now goes to the 11th Circuit appeals court in Atlanta[5].
The judge did not say noncitizens may vote. He said the opposite: every state already requires citizenship, and Florida "can and does" prosecute people who break that rule[3][7]. His point was about who holds the power. In his reading, the Constitution lets states, not Congress, decide who is qualified to vote. That holds even in elections for Congress and president[1][6]. "Congress has no power to say who can vote or who cannot vote in federal elections," he wrote[4].
The ruling binds only Cox's case. Other judges are free to disagree[1][6]. But about 45 similar federal cases are pending nationwide, and at least four other defendants have raised the same argument[4]. The Trump administration has made noncitizen voting a centerpiece of its election-integrity push ahead of the November midterms[2][8]. So the appeal matters well beyond one defendant.
The core dispute is a constitutional one. Is a federal ban on noncitizen voting a "voter qualification," which belongs to the states? Or is it a way of policing federal elections and enforcing immigration status, which Congress may do? The Justice Department says it "deeply disagree[s]" with the ruling[1]. The libertarian Cato Institute says the reasoning, if upheld, has "big implications" for the SAVE America Act. That House-passed bill would require federal citizenship checks for voters[6].
The Event
On Thursday, Oct. 1, 2026, U.S. District Judge David S. Leibowitz of the Southern District of Florida issued a 31-page order. It dismissed a misdemeanor charge under 18 U.S.C. § 611 against Chelsea Michelle Ann Cox. Cox had been charged in October 2025 with voting in the 2020 election as a noncitizen[1][6]. The judge held the statute unconstitutional as applied to Cox and declined to decide whether it is invalid in every case[6]. The Justice Department filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit on Friday, Oct. 2[5].
Undisputed Facts
- Judge Leibowitz dismissed the § 611 charge against Chelsea Cox in a 31-page order issued Thursday, Oct. 1, 2026[1].
- Court filings show Cox entered the U.S. as a tourist in 1999 and overstayed her visa. She later used a fake U.S. Virgin Islands birth certificate to get a Florida driver's license and register to vote in 2012[3].
- Section 611 was enacted in 1996 as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA)[2][4].
- The ruling applies only to Cox's case. It does not bind other judges, and the judge declined to rule on a facial challenge, meaning a claim that the law is invalid in every case[2][6].
- The judge wrote that states may still bar noncitizen voting and that Florida's own laws cover the conduct Cox is accused of[3][7].
- Leibowitz was nominated by President Joe Biden[3][4].
- A Justice Department spokeswoman said the department "deeply disagree[s] with the ruling." The department filed a notice of appeal to the 11th Circuit on Oct. 2[1][5].
- About 45 similar federal noncitizen-voting cases are pending nationwide, and at least four other defendants have raised the same constitutional challenge, according to the Washington Times; this count was not independently confirmed[4].
- The court appointed Paul Clement and Chadwick Harper as amicus curiae, who argued that the statute exceeds Congress's power and pointed to its 'unless' clause, which leaves noncitizen voting in state elections to the states[7].
- Oregon v. Mitchell (1970), the government's main precedent, produced no majority rationale. The judge distinguished it, noting Justice Scalia's description of it as 'of minimal precedential value'[11].
The Pressure
Strip away the moralizing and blame. What structural realities persist regardless of which narrative wins?
- Qualifications vs. procedures
- The whole case turns on one line in the Constitution. Congress may regulate the 'times, places and manner' of federal elections, which covers the mechanics of voting. The qualifications of voters come from state law[6][10]. Here is how it works. If a rule decides WHO may vote, Leibowitz says it is a qualification, and only states may set it. If a rule decides HOW voting is run, such as registration forms or fraud penalties, Congress may act. The government's side says § 611 polices fraud in federal elections and enforces immigration status. If that is right, it falls within Congress's powers[1][7]. Each side's reading is plausible on its own terms. The Supreme Court has split on related questions. In 2013 it drew the WHO/HOW line sharply[10]. In 1970 it let Congress set a federal voting age[11].
- As-applied vs. facial rulings
- A facial ruling says a law is invalid in every case. An as-applied ruling says it cannot be used against this person on these facts. Leibowitz issued only the second kind and declined to reach the first[6]. So § 611 stays on the books, and other judges may enforce it. That is why words like 'strikes down' and 'guts' overstate the order[8][11].
- Federal power for the midterms
- The administration needs § 611, and the broader claim that Congress can police voter citizenship, for its prosecutions and for the SAVE America Act[4][6]. A loss in the 11th Circuit would push the issue toward the Supreme Court.
Material realityEvery state already requires citizenship to vote in state and federal elections. Florida has its own laws against what Cox is accused of doing[3][7]. So the ruling does not change who may legally vote anywhere. It changes which government may prosecute. The 11th Circuit appeal will decide whether federal prosecutors keep § 611 in Florida, Georgia and Alabama. Meanwhile about 45 similar cases are pending, and at least four defendants are raising the same challenge[4][5].
Narrative as a weaponRight-leaning outlets are shaping the story around the judge's Biden appointment and the image of a court shielding a noncitizen who voted. That framing tends to skip the fact that states still ban noncitizen voting and that the ruling covers only Cox[2][4][9]. Some center-left and foreign outlets go the other way. They use verbs like 'guts' and 'strikes down' and tie a 1996 law to the Trump administration, which makes the ruling look broader and more partisan than it is[8][11]. The Justice Department wants the ruling seen as an outlier to be reversed[1][5]. Cato and SAVE Act critics want it seen as a sign of the constitutional limits on federal voter-citizenship checks[6][12]. The least-covered fact is the most important one: the dispute is over who enforces a citizenship rule everyone agrees on, not over whether noncitizens should vote.
How Each Side Sees It
Each major actor’s view — how it frames things, its underlying incentive, and how it’s materially affected. Tap a side to read it.
Frames it asThe argument starts with the text. Article I says House voters must have the qualifications needed to vote for the larger house of their state legislature. The 17th Amendment uses the same rule for Senate elections. Article II lets each state legislature decide how its presidential electors are chosen[6][9]. So the Constitution ties federal voter qualifications to state law. The judge wrote that "the text, structure, and original public meaning of the Constitution" show Congress lacks this power[1]. He relied on the Supreme Court's 2013 decision in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council. In that case Justice Antonin Scalia separated two things. Congress may regulate HOW federal elections are run. States decide WHO may vote[6][10]. Supporters also stress that nothing is lost on the ground: every state requires citizenship, and Florida can prosecute Cox itself[3][7].
WhyTo hold Congress to limited, listed powers. For Cato, it is also to show that the same limits would block parts of the SAVE America Act, which it has questioned[6].
Impact on themThe theory now faces the 11th Circuit. If the appeals court adopts it, federal prosecutors in Florida, Georgia and Alabama would lose § 611 as a tool. That would shift enforcement to the states[4][5].
Frames it asProsecutors argued that the Constitution gives the federal government "a significant role in overseeing" federal elections[1]. Their argument has several parts. First, the Elections Clause lets Congress regulate how federal elections are run, and that has long included anti-fraud laws. Second, Congress controls immigration and foreign affairs, and whether a noncitizen may take part in choosing the national government falls within that federal power[1][7]. Third, a federal ban does not invent a new qualification. It enforces the citizenship rule every state already has, so it fits Congress's power to protect the integrity of its own elections. There is also precedent pointing their way. In Oregon v. Mitchell (1970), the Supreme Court let Congress set an 18-year-old voting age for federal elections, though not for state elections[11].
WhyTo keep a 30-year-old federal tool that supports dozens of pending prosecutions. Noncitizen voting is a central theme of the administration's election-integrity message before the midterms[4][8].
Impact on themIf the theory spreads, it could undercut about 45 pending cases[4][8]. It also threatens the legal basis for a federal citizenship-verification push, including the SAVE America Act[6].
Frames it asTheir case is about values and protecting the vote. Only citizens should choose the national government, and a federal crime is the uniform backstop that makes that rule real in all 50 states. They note that Cox is accused of obtaining a license and registering with a fake birth certificate. In their view, that shows enforcement gaps exist and need federal attention[2][3]. They argue that leaving enforcement to each state means uneven protection for a national election. They also note the ruling came from a Biden appointee[4][9].
WhyTo pass the SAVE America Act and keep election integrity as a voter-mobilizing issue. The bill passed the House 218–213 on Feb. 11, 2026[6].
Impact on themAn appeals ruling against § 611 would weaken the constitutional footing of federal citizenship-check bills. Supporters would then have to rely more on state laws and state prosecutors[6].
Frames it asThey say the Constitution has always left voter qualifications to states. On that view, a federal citizenship-to-vote regime is an overreach, not a safeguard. Commentary in The Conversation made this argument about the SAVE Act months before the ruling[12]. They also argue that states already ban and prosecute noncitizen voting, so no gap exists for Congress to fill[3]. Some coverage from this side treats the § 611 prosecutions as part of a political push before the midterms more than a response to a large problem[8].
WhyTo block the SAVE America Act, which they say would impose new documentation burdens on eligible citizens, and to cast the administration's prosecutions as political[6][8].
Impact on themThe ruling supports their constitutional argument against federal voter-roll checks. It also leaves them defending a result that opponents can describe as a court protecting a noncitizen who voted[2][6].
Frames it asHer defense argued that Congress had no power to pass the statute she was charged under, and the court agreed as applied to her[1][13].
WhyTo end the federal prosecution[13].
Impact on themThe federal charge is dismissed for now. It could be revived if the 11th Circuit reverses. The judge noted that Florida law separately covers the conduct she is accused of[3][5].
Like this article?
The Bias Ledger average rating 5.3
The same story, as framed by outlets across the spectrum, ordered least to most biased. The bias score (1 = straight, 10 = heavily spun) is an AI assessment of that framing — click an outlet to see its track record. The tell is the word choice or omission that reveals the angle.
| Outlet | Vantage | Bias | How they frame it | The tell |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CBS News | U.S. center | 2 | Judge says federal law banning noncitizen voting is unconstitutional | The verb 'says' attributes the claim to the judge. The story gives the DOJ's 'deeply disagree' quote and makes clear that the ruling covers only Cox. It does not say 'as applied' in the headline. |
| Al Jazeera | Qatari state-funded | 3 | Miami judge rules federal noncitizen voting law violates US Constitution | This is a mostly straight account with case details others left out (the fake birth certificate, the 2012 registration). It frames the case inside the administration's 'intensified efforts' on noncitizen voting. |
| The Washington Times | U.S. right | 5 | A federal law banned noncitizen voting in 1996. A Biden judge just called it unconstitutional / Trump files speedy appeal after Biden judge rules Congress can't ban noncitizens from voting | It labels the judge by the president who appointed him in both headlines. It also reports useful facts others left out: the Friday notice of appeal and about 45 pending cases. |
| NBC News | U.S. center-left | 5 | Judge guts noncitizen voting law used in Trump administration's election push | 'Guts' overstates a ruling limited to one defendant. 'Used in Trump administration's election push' ties a 1996 law mainly to one administration's political goals. |
| Fox News | U.S. right | 6 | 'Activist judge' rules Congress cannot bar noncitizens from voting in federal elections (later shown as 'Florida federal judge rules noncitizen voting ban is unconstitutional') | 'Activist judge' in quotation marks frames the ruling before the reader reaches the reasoning. 'Cannot bar noncitizens from voting' suggests noncitizens may now vote, when the judge said states can and do ban it. The body does note the ruling is as-applied and non-binding. |
| Geo News | Pakistani private | 6 | Noncitizen voting ruling explained: Federal judge strikes down Trump administration's ban | It calls a 1996 statute 'the Trump administration's ban.' 'Strikes down' overstates an as-applied ruling. |
| The Gateway Pundit | U.S. far right | 10 | COMMIES IN THE COURT: Biden Judge Rules Law That Makes It Illegal for NONCITIZENS to Vote Is UNCONSTITUTIONAL! | The name-calling ('COMMIES') and all-caps outrage replace any account of the constitutional reasoning. It leaves out that states still ban noncitizen voting. |
References
- Judge says federal law banning noncitizen voting is unconstitutional — CBS News · U.S. broadcast network (Paramount Skydance); center
- Florida federal judge rules noncitizen voting ban is unconstitutional — Fox News · U.S. right-leaning cable network (Fox Corp.)
- Miami judge rules federal noncitizen voting law violates US Constitution — Al Jazeera · Funded by the Qatari state
- A federal law banned noncitizen voting in 1996. A Biden judge just called it unconstitutional — The Washington Times · U.S. conservative daily
- Trump files speedy appeal after Biden judge rules Congress can't ban noncitizens from voting — The Washington Times · U.S. conservative daily
- A Noncitizen Voting Ruling With Big Implications for the SAVE America Act — Cato Institute · Libertarian think tank; donor-funded (historically including Koch family); pro-immigration, skeptical of federal power
- US federal judge finds states, not Congress, must regulate voting by noncitizens — JURIST · Legal news service based at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law; center
- Judge guts noncitizen voting law used in Trump administration's election push — NBC News · U.S. broadcast network (Comcast/NBCUniversal); center-left
- Biden Judge Calls It 'Constitutional Bedrock' to Oppose Federal Ban on Noncitizen Voting — The Daily Signal · U.S. conservative outlet founded by the Heritage Foundation
- Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. — Wikipedia · Crowd-sourced encyclopedia summarizing a 2013 Supreme Court opinion
- Noncitizen voting ruling explained: Federal judge strikes down Trump administration's ban — Geo News · Pakistani private broadcaster (Jang Group)
- Citizenship voting requirement in SAVE Act has no basis in the Constitution — The Conversation · Nonprofit outlet publishing academics' commentary; this piece argues against the SAVE Act
- Judge Leibowitz strikes down § 611 non-citizen voting statute (as applied) — Southern District of Florida Blog · Blog run by a Miami criminal-defense lawyer; defense-bar perspective
- Oregon v. Mitchell — Ballotpedia · Nonprofit political encyclopedia (Lucy Burns Institute)