Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute
2018 Supreme Court ruling that upheld Ohio's process for removing inactive voters from its rolls.
The 2018 ruling on Ohio's own voter removals sits behind the 2026 fight over Justice Department demands on state rolls, which Judge Sparkle Sooknanan ruled unlawful on 9 October.
Last refreshed: 18 October 2026
Timeline for Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute
Mentioned in: Judge voids DOJ's SAVE voter-roll policy
US Midterms 2026Mentioned in: Sixth Circuit rejects DOJ roll demand
US Midterms 2026Background
Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, 584 U.S. 756 (2018), is a Supreme Court of the United States ruling decided on 11 June 2018. By 5 votes to 4, in an opinion by Justice Samuel Alito, the Court reversed the Sixth Circuit and upheld Ohio's process for removing voters from its rolls. The petitioner was Jon Husted, then Ohio's secretary of state.
Under Ohio's process, a registrant with no voter activity for two years was sent an address-confirmation card. A registrant who did not return it and stayed inactive for four more years, including two federal general elections, was removed. the Court held this did not breach the National Voter Registration Act, because non-voting was only one factor alongside the unanswered notice. Justice Stephen Breyer dissented, joined by three others.
The case concerned a state's own removals. In October 2026 a federal judge ruled that the Justice Department acted unlawfully in demanding removals from state rolls, and the United States backed the Republicans in a Supreme Court case on the NVRA's 90-day quiet period.
The latitude belongs to states alone
Husted gave states wide Latitude over their own list maintenance. A Sixth Circuit panel ruled 2-1 on 24 June 2026 that a 1960 civil rights law did not let the Justice Department demand Michigan's unredacted voter rolls. That ruling left Husted untouched: the 2018 case concerned a state removing its own voters, while the Sixth Circuit blocked an outside federal demand for the underlying files.
On 9 October Judge Sparkle Sooknanan went further, ruling that the department broke the law by collecting state rolls, checking them against a federal citizenship database and demanding removals. Husted remains the authority on what a state may do with its own rolls; the 2026 rulings have so far denied the same reach to Washington.
What did Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute decide?
How did Ohio remove inactive voters?
When was Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute decided?
Who was Husted in Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute?
Written with AI from Lowdown's published reporting. Not individually reviewed by an editor. Updated 18 October 2026. Editorial standards.