Miami Judge Rules Noncitizen Voting Ban Unconstitutional as GOP Vows Reversal

Miami-based U.S. District Judge David Leibowitz has dismissed a federal criminal case against a noncitizen who cast a ballot in the 2020 presidential election, ruling that Congress exceeded its authority when it made voting by noncitizens a federal crime. The 31-page order lands as a speed bump for the Trump administration's nationwide election integrity push, but it is almost certainly headed for reversal on appeal. The administration has made clear it will not stop pressing the issue before the midterms.

The case centered on Chelsea Cox, a Florida resident originally from Jamaica who was charged in October 2025 with a misdemeanor for voting in 2020 despite not being a U.S. citizen. Leibowitz ruled that the provision of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 that criminalizes noncitizen voting in federal elections is unconstitutional as applied to her. The judge concluded the Constitution reserves the power to set voter qualifications for the states, not Congress.

A 31-Page Ruling Out of South Florida

At the heart of the decision is a reading of the Constitution that hands nearly all control over voter eligibility to the states. Leibowitz wrote that the founding document commits to the states, and the states alone, the general power to set voter qualifications in federal elections. He argued that both the text of the Constitution and the debates at the 1787 convention support that view.

The ruling does not legalize noncitizen voting, and it does not touch state laws that bar the practice. It instead strikes at the federal statute prosecutors had used to bring the charge. That distinction matters, because the administration's broader strategy relies on both federal prosecutions and pressure on states to clean their voter rolls.

Conservatives quickly rejected the reasoning. Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, a co-author of the stalled Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, called the decision an activist ruling and predicted it would not survive. The SAVE Act would require documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote, and it remains stuck in the Senate with the midterms approaching.

The Constitutional Fight Over Who Sets Voter Rules

Hans von Spakovsky of Advancing American Freedom argued the opinion is patently wrong and predicted the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals will overturn it. He pointed to Article I, Section 8, which grants Congress authority over naturalization, as the basis for federal power to regulate how noncitizens participate in elections.

Von Spakovsky also cited Bluman v. FEC, a 2011 decision written by then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh and later affirmed by the Supreme Court, which upheld restrictions on political spending by foreign nationals. That precedent, he said, shows the government may exclude noncitizens from core functions of democratic self-government.

The legal question now moves to a higher court. Supreme Court precedent has long held that states set voter qualifications, but federal authority over immigration and naturalization gives Congress its own lane. How the appeals court reconciles those two powers will shape how aggressively Washington can police the ballot.

An Election Integrity Push That Keeps Rolling

The ruling is the latest courtroom chapter in a broader effort by the administration to tighten election security. Earlier this year the Justice Department warned states that election officials could face criminal charges if they knowingly allow noncitizens to vote, sending letters to all 50 states and demanding answers on compliance with federal voter eligibility rules.

Those letters signaled that the federal government intends to enforce eligibility standards directly, even as courts test the limits of its power. The administration has paired the prosecutions with attempts to verify citizenship on state voter rolls, a move that has drawn lawsuits from Democratic-led states and voting rights groups.

Supporters of the crackdown say the ruling changes little about the underlying reality. Noncitizen voting is already barred under state law in every state, and the administration argues its enforcement tools are needed to catch the cases that slip through. A single dismissed case, they contend, does not dismantle the larger architecture of election safeguards.

What to Watch Next

The immediate next step is an appeal. Federal prosecutors are expected to take the ruling to the 11th Circuit, and legal observers on both sides expect a reversal given the weight of precedent on Congress's naturalization power. A higher court decision could arrive well before voters finish casting ballots in November.

Meanwhile, the SAVE Act remains the administration's preferred long-term fix, and pressure on the Senate to act is only likely to grow as the midterms near. Whether through the courts or through Congress, the fight over who may vote is set to stay at the center of national politics. For Republicans, the dismissed case is a reminder of why they say the push matters -- and a reason to keep pressing it.