A federal appeals court rejected the Justice Department’s effort to force Michigan to hand over confidential, unredacted voter registration data. The ruling—described as the biggest setback yet—turns on whether a 1960 civil rights law even covers the state’s i
On a Wednesday when the stakes were already high, a federal appeals court delivered a clear refusal: Michigan does not have to turn over confidential, non-public voter registration information the Justice Department wants.
The dispute centers on a request for unredacted voter rolls—data that could include social security numbers and driver’s license ID numbers. In rejecting the administration’s demands, the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals said Michigan was not obligated to produce the confidential voter data.
The court’s decision landed after nine judges at the district court level had already ruled against the administration’s efforts. This is the first time an appeals court has weighed in, potentially setting the case on a path toward a Supreme Court showdown.
Writing for the appellate panel majority. Circuit Judge Andre Mathis said the 1960 civil rights law the Justice Department relied on does not reach the kind of voter information Michigan compiles in-house. The lawsuit seeks to force production of voter rolls from states across the country as part of a broader campaign.
Mathis framed the argument as a mismatch between the law’s original purpose and the government’s modern use of it. He wrote that the 1960 power was used to ensure people who had the right to vote could “freely exercise that right. ” but that “today. the government invokes Title III for an inverse purpose—to ensure that some people have not voted.”.
The appeals court also relied on the specific mechanics of what Michigan did. In the opinion, joined by Circuit Judge R. Guy Cole. Jr. Mathis wrote that Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn “Benson” did not acquire or obtain the qualified voter file from a third party. “Instead, Michigan officials created it themselves.”.
The ruling further concluded that the Justice Department failed to meet other requirements under the 1960 law when making its requests.
Not all judges agreed. Circuit Judge John B. Nalbandian dissented.
The Michigan case is only one front in a larger legal push. The Justice Department has sued 30 states that refused to produce unredacted voter rolls.
Beyond the immediate fight over data access, the controversy has become part of a wider pattern in which the administration—fed by President Donald Trump’s longstanding beliefs that the 2020 election was rigged against him—has sought more federal control over election administration.
Courts have not been consistently receptive. Just this week, a judge in DC blocked the use of the federal citizenship data system for purging voter rolls. Earlier Wednesday. a Boston federal court added to the list of decisions striking down parts of a 2025 Trump executive order related to election rules.
In the 6th Circuit case, the question was whether the Justice Department could use provisions of the 1960 Civil Rights Act—aimed at pushing back on Jim Crow-era voter discrimination—to obtain voter rolls.
The law allows the attorney general to demand the production of certain voting-related records that “come into” the “possession” of election officials. The appeals court and other lower courts concluded that internally assembled state voter registration files weren’t records covered by the statute.
As the cases unfolded, DOJ lawyers gave shifting explanations for why they needed the voter files. More recently, the administration has been explicit that it intends to compare state voter rolls against a Department of Homeland Security data system used for verifying citizenship.
That DHS tool is already available for election officials to use voluntarily. It has also developed a reputation for turning up false positives, with naturalized citizens particularly at risk of being wrongly identified as ineligible voters.
At this point. the question for the courts is no longer just what the Justice Department wants to check—it’s whether the federal statute it chose gives the government the authority it is trying to use. With a unanimous district court record against the administration so far. and now an appeals court ruling rejecting Michigan’s obligation. the fight looks set to intensify rather than fade.
This story has been updated with additional details.
Michigan Justice Department voter rolls unredacted voter data 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals 1960 Civil Rights Act Jocelyn Benson Andre Mathis R. Guy Cole Jr John B. Nalbandian Supreme Court