Skip to content
Welcome, thoughtbot's Giant Robots listeners!Start here
US Midterms 2026
6JUN

Sixth Circuit rejects DOJ roll demand

2 min read
12:16UTC

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 fight⁠1. 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
Judge Adolf Zeman, Alaska Superior Court
Judge Adolf Zeman, Alaska Superior Court
Zeman refused to dismiss the League of Women Voters, Alaska Black Caucus and ACLU of Alaska suit over the state giving DOJ its unredacted voter list. The privacy claims now go to evidence-gathering under the Alaska Constitution.
Judge Thomas Schroeder, US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
Judge Thomas Schroeder, US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
Schroeder refused on 19 October to block the State Board of Elections rule that rejects mail ballots with an unsealed or missing inner envelope. He found the challengers had delayed and that relief was infeasible with voting under way, and pointed to notice-and-cure provisions as a safeguard.
Stephen Richer, Republican former Maricopa County recorder
Stephen Richer, Republican former Maricopa County recorder
Richer submitted a brief on 20 October supporting the voting groups on documentary proof of citizenship at registration. He takes no position on the separate 90-day voter-removal question.
Senate Leadership Fund
Senate Leadership Fund
The Senate Leadership Fund began spending for interim Senator Darline Graham Nordone on 19 October, taking its South Carolina total to $4.06m, including $2.25m against Democrat Annie Andrews. Republicans are now paying to defend a seat in a state Donald Trump carried in 2024.
WinSenate, the ad-buying affiliate of Senate Majority PAC
WinSenate, the ad-buying affiliate of Senate Majority PAC
WinSenate began buying Kansas airtime against Roger Marshall on 10 October and had reported $8.14m there by 20 October. Marshall held $922,088 in cash on 30 September and the NRSC gave him no party money in September, so the Democratic side is spending where the Republican committee has not.
County Board of Arlington County
County Board of Arlington County
Arlington says federal Polling Place Policies allowing armed agents at polling sites breach 18 USC 592, the 1865 ban on troops or armed men at an election. It reads Markwayne Mullin's 1 September remarks as confirming such a policy, and asks Judge Brinkema to keep armed federal staff from its polls and drop boxes.

Written with AI from Lowdown's published reporting. Not individually reviewed by an editor. Editorial standards.