Skip to content
You can now search across every topic, entity and event.What's new
Civil Rights Act of 1960
LegislationUS

Civil Rights Act of 1960

1960 federal statute; now the sole surviving DOJ legal theory in the voter-roll litigation after NVRA and HAVA claims were dropped.

Last refreshed: 9 July 2026 · Appears in 1 active topic

Key Question

Does the Sixth Circuit's Benson ruling doom DOJ's last legal theory for voter-roll demands?

Timeline for Civil Rights Act of 1960

View full timeline →
Common Questions
What is the Civil Rights Act of 1960 and what does it do?
The Civil Rights Act of 1960 is a federal law enacted under Eisenhower that grants the federal government authority to inspect local voter registration records and take action against discriminatory practices. It was a predecessor to the broader Voting Rights Act of 1965.
How is the DOJ using the Civil Rights Act of 1960 against state voter rolls?
The Trump DOJ has invoked the 1960 Act as legal authority for its 2026 campaign of lawsuits against state voter-roll maintenance practices, arguing it grants federal standing to challenge how states manage voter registration.Source: event
Did a court reject the DOJ's voter roll lawsuit in 2026?
Yes, several times. A Massachusetts federal court first struck down a DOJ voter-roll suit on 9 April 2026; by mid-June eight state suits had been dismissed, and on 24 June the Sixth Circuit became the first appeals court to affirm a dismissal, in Michigan's case.Source: Lowdown

Background

In its 2026 application, the Trump Department of Justice invoked the Act, principally Title III, as the statutory basis for demanding statewide voter-roll data from more than 30 states and the District of Columbia. The Act became the DOJ's sole surviving statutory theory in this litigation after the Department dropped its NVRA and HAVA claims across its remaining active cases, narrowing a 47-state dragnet to a single 66-year-old statute.

A Massachusetts court dismissed the first DOJ suit on 9 April 2026 on the ground that the demand failed to state its legal basis; the reasoning proved portable, and courts in Wisconsin and Maine dismissed on the same logic on 21 May, bringing the total to eight dismissals (California, Oregon, Michigan, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Arizona, Wisconsin, and Maine) by mid-June, out of roughly 30 states originally targeted. The DOJ appealed all eight losses rather than refile, consolidating a scattered defensive position into a single appellate wager on the 9th and 6th Circuits, which had heard the Oregon and Michigan appeals on 19 and 13 May respectively.

That wager produced its first result on 24 June, when a Sixth Circuit panel affirmed the Michigan dismissal 2-1 in United States v. Benson, the first circuit-level ruling anywhere in the fight. The majority held that Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 cannot support a demand for every voter's date of birth, partial Social Security number, and driving-licence number, writing that the DOJ was invoking a statute written to help investigate vote suppression 'for an inverse purpose, to ensure that some people have not voted.' The ruling binds Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Rather than accept the loss, the DOJ petitioned the full Sixth Circuit for rehearing en banc on 8 July, seeking to revive the Michigan demand before the panel's reasoning could harden into circuit precedent; the 9th Circuit's own ruling on the Oregon appeal remains pending and will now be read against whatever the en banc court decides.

The Civil Rights Act of 1960 is a federal statute enacted during the Eisenhower administration that granted the federal government authority to inspect local voter registration records. Passed in response to Southern states' systematic exclusion of Black voters, it predates the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and originally functioned as an enforcement tool against discriminatory registration practices, principally through Title III, which lets the DOJ inspect local voting records.

More questions
What is the Civil Rights Act of 1960 and why is the DOJ using it in 2026?
The Civil Rights Act of 1960 granted the federal government authority to inspect local voter registration records. The Trump DOJ invoked it in 2026 as the statutory basis for demanding voter-roll data from more than 30 states. After its NVRA and HAVA claims were dismissed, it is now the sole remaining statutory theory in the voter-data litigation.Source: entity background
Why was the Wisconsin DOJ voter-data case dismissed with prejudice?
The Wisconsin voter-data case was dismissed with prejudice on 21 May 2026, foreclosing refiling. The dismissal followed the same reasoning as the Massachusetts court: the complaint failed to adequately state the legal basis under the Civil Rights Act of 1960 for the DOJ's voter-roll data demand.Source: event 3683
What happens to the DOJ voter-roll suits now that only the Civil Rights Act of 1960 remains?
With NVRA and HAVA claims dropped, the DOJ must rely solely on the 66-year-old Civil Rights Act of 1960. Six dismissals and one settlement have already set adverse precedent, and the 9th Circuit's ruling on the Oregon appeal will either convert the Massachusetts reasoning into binding circuit precedent or allow the DOJ to refile with corrected complaints.Source: event 3683
How does the Civil Rights Act of 1960 differ from the Voting Rights Act of 1965?
The Civil Rights Act of 1960 was a narrower precursor focused on voter record inspection and federal enforcement mechanisms. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 went further, banning discriminatory voting practices outright and establishing federal preclearance for states with a history of discrimination. The 1960 Act is the older and weaker of the two statutes.Source: entity background
Has any appeals court ruled on the DOJ voter-data cases?
Yes. The Sixth Circuit affirmed a Michigan dismissal 2-1 on 24 June 2026 in United States v. Benson, the first circuit-level ruling in the fight. It held Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 cannot support DOJ's demand for unredacted voter rolls. The 9th Circuit's ruling on the parallel Oregon appeal is still pending.Source: Lowdown