Skip to content
You can now search across every topic, entity and event.What's new
US Midterms 2026
26JUL

Sixth Circuit rejects DOJ roll demand

2 min read
10:41UTC

A Sixth Circuit panel affirmed 2-1 the dismissal of the Justice Department's demand for Michigan's unredacted voter rolls, the first appellate ruling in the year-old voter-data fight.

PoliticsDeveloping
Key takeaway

The administration's voter-data push lost for the first time at an appeals court, binding four states.

A federal appeals court rejected the Justice Department's (DOJ) demand for Michigan's unredacted voter rolls on Wednesday 24 June, the first circuit-level ruling anywhere in the year-old voter-data fight 1. In United States v. Benson, a Sixth Circuit panel affirmed the dismissal 2-1. Judge Mathis wrote that Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 cannot bear the weight of a demand for every voter's date of birth, partial Social Security number and driving-licence number. The ruling binds Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee.

Congress wrote Title III to help the DOJ investigate officials who suppressed the vote. The department now invokes it, in the panel's words, 'for an inverse purpose, to ensure that some people have not voted' 2. The two-judge majority refused to read the 1960 statute as authority for auditing whether individuals had cast ballots.

The DOJ reached this appeal already losing. It had appealed all eight of its trial-court dismissals in mid-June and, weeks earlier, had dropped its own national voter-database case rather than defend it . The panel handed the department its first outright loss at the circuit level. Judge Nalbandian dissented, preserving the DOJ a path to the full Sixth Circuit or the Supreme Court.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

The Department of Justice has spent more than a year trying to get Michigan to hand over its full voter roll, including personal details usually kept private, using a law originally passed in 1960 to stop officials from blocking Black Americans from voting. A federal appeals court just ruled the department cannot use that particular law for that purpose. It is the first time an appeals court, rather than a lower district court, has weighed in, and the ruling now applies to Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee alike.

Deep Analysis
Root Causes

Title III of the 1960 Civil Rights Act lets the DOJ sue over the 'deprivation... of the right to vote', language drafted to unblock ballot access, not to justify bulk pre-litigation demands for unredacted voter files. Unlike the National Voter Registration Act, it contains no provision authorising the kind of disclosure the department sought.

The DOJ narrowed its own case in June by dropping the NVRA and HAVA claims that could have supplied that authority, after courts had already rejected those theories elsewhere. That left only a statute textually mismatched to the request it was being used to support.

Escalation

Escalation direction: down. Benson closes one of the DOJ's last live statutory theories, adding to a retreat already underway. The department has already dropped eight of its 31 original suits and voluntarily narrowed its legal theory twice this year. A further appellate loss in the remaining circuits would end the initiative entirely rather than escalate it.

What could happen next?
  • Consequence

    The ruling binds Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee, ending the DOJ's Title III approach in those four states unless the full Sixth Circuit or the Supreme Court reverses the panel.

  • Risk

    With only one statutory theory left standing, the DOJ risks its entire voter-data programme collapsing on a single ruling from any of the other circuits still hearing the remaining appeals.

First Reported In

Update #11 · Money uncapped, ballot rules untouched

US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit· 1 Jul 2026
Read original
Different Perspectives
Senate Budget Committee under Ron Johnson
Senate Budget Committee under Ron Johnson
Johnson, reported to succeed the late Lindsey Graham as Budget chair on 22 July, has a record of opposing reconciliation packages on deficit grounds, a different proposition than his predecessor for carrying the $10bn voter-ID grant through the Senate on 51 votes after the House passed its version 216-214.
NRCC and Republican committee strategists
NRCC and Republican committee strategists
The NRCC's $92.7m cash on hand outweighs the DCCC's $79.0m by $13.7m even after Democrats out-raised them $37.4m to $35.4m in the second quarter, official FEC filings from 20 July confirmed. Strategists are banking on the reserve gap, not this quarter's receipts, to carry House races.
Memphis civil-rights plaintiffs
Memphis civil-rights plaintiffs
The Black Clergy Collaborative and allied Memphis plaintiffs argued Tennessee's redraw split the state's only Black-majority district to dilute their vote, and lost on 23 July when the panel found the map "driven by politics, not race". The ruling leaves it governing the 6 August primary while their underlying trial continues.
Department of Justice
Department of Justice
DOJ filed notice of appeal on its Connecticut dismissal the same day, 23 July, a Kentucky court threw out an identical suit, its seventeenth loss without ever pleading which statute authorises the voter-file demand. It continues pressing 13 live cases on an appellate strategy that has produced one ruling, the 6th Circuit's Benson loss.
Overseas and military voters
Overseas and military voters
1,051 UOCAVA voters had requested ballots for the original 9 June primary before Graham's death on 11 July moved the calendar entirely. Dhillon's 19-20 July agreement sets a fresh 1 August mailing date for the 11 August primary, a fix that arrived after the vacancy it addresses rather than before it.
South Carolina State Election Commission
South Carolina State Election Commission
Commission director Conway Belangia declared the June-primary crossover review "completed" on 16 July, barring anyone who voted in the June Democratic primary from the 11 August Republican special primary, citing only "the requirements of South Carolina election law" without naming the statute. Both parties accepted the ruling rather than challenge it.