A federal appeals court has blocked the Trump administration’s effort to obtain unredacted voter rolls from Michigan, ruling that the government sought to use civil rights statutes in a way that turns their original purpose on its head. The decision represents a significant legal setback for the Department of Justice’s months-long pursuit of the sensitive state data.
The decision affirmed a lower court’s dismissal of a lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice against the state and its Secretary of State, Jocelyn Benson. The DOJ’s 2025 complaint, filed in September of that year, alleged Michigan violated multiple federal voting laws. The government’s 19-page filing cited alleged violations of the National Voter Registration Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1960, and the Help America Vote Act.
Related: Mother leaves newborn in dumpster, child still alive
Benson’s office had provided the publicly available version of the state’s voter list, a standard practice. However, it refused to release the more sensitive, unredacted version of that data, believing the federal government lacked the statutory authority to demand it. After the lawsuit was filed, Michigan moved to dismiss the case in November 2025, and received support from outside groups. The state was aided by amicus briefs and motions to intervene filed by organizations including the League of Women Voters and the Democratic National Committee.
A district court judge appointed by President Trump, Chief U.S. District Judge Hala Y. Jarbou, dismissed the legal challenge in February, finding the cited statutes did not authorize such a sweeping data request. In her ruling, Judge Jarbou stated the conclusion was based directly on the statutory text, clarifying that the three federal laws at issue “do not allow the United States to obtain the records at issue in this case.”
Following that dismissal, the Trump administration appealed and moved to expedite the briefing schedule, hoping for a quick reversal from the higher court.
Related: Man sentenced 160 years for double murder over family debts
The ruling stated that Congress originally enacted key parts of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 to empower the Attorney General to investigate voting discrimination and ensure that citizens could exercise their right to vote. The opinion details how Title III gave teeth to prior civil rights legislation, enabling the Attorney General to obtain certain state voting records for the purpose of enforcement and investigation.
The majority argued that the administration’s reading of the law would upend the constitutional structure where states, like Michigan, do most of the heavy lifting in overseeing federal elections under authority granted by the U.S. Constitution.
The legal analysis hinges on a specific phrase in the statute. Prosecutors argued the records were “subject to disclosure” because they must be “made available” upon a written demand specifying the basis and purpose for inspection. The judges disagreed, stating the qualified voter file did not “come into” Secretary Benson’s possession. Benson did not acquire, obtain, or receive the qualified voter file from a third party; instead, Michigan officials created it themselves pursuant to state law that directs the secretary of state to establish and maintain such a database.
Related: Man told Trump to find out on death threat
Michigan officials had created the database themselves under Michigan state law. It was an “internally generated” resource, not something acquired from an outside source. To illustrate this distinction, the opinion offered an analogy about a baker and a cake. A baker may purchase ingredients like flour and eggs from a store and “come into possession” of them. But after baking those ingredients into a cake, it would be strange to say the baker “came into possession” of the cake—the baker created it.
The court concluded that the statute’s “narrow text” “cannot withstand the weight of” such a broad data request from the federal government. One judge on the panel dissented from the ruling but chose not to file a separate written opinion explaining their disagreement.
Leave a Reply