Federal Judge Rules Noncitizen Voting Law Unconstitutional

A major legal dispute over noncitizen voting has emerged in Florida after U.S. District Judge David S. Leibowitz ruled that a federal law criminalizing voting by non-U.S. citizens in federal elections is unconstitutional.

The decision, issued October 1, 2026, involves a federal prosecution against Chelsea Cox, a Florida resident and Jamaican national accused of voting in the 2020 presidential election. Leibowitz dismissed the federal case, concluding that Congress lacked constitutional authority to establish the voter qualification at issue through the statute used to prosecute Cox.

The ruling does not mean that noncitizens have suddenly received a nationwide constitutional right to vote. The decision applies specifically to Cox’s case, and it does not prevent states from establishing and enforcing their own citizenship requirements for voting. Reuters reported that every state currently requires U.S. citizenship to vote.

The case centers on 18 U.S.C. § 611, a federal provision enacted in 1996 that makes it a federal misdemeanor for a noncitizen to vote in an election involving federal offices. Leibowitz’s ruling focused primarily on the constitutional question of whether Congress had the authority to enact that criminal prohibition.

According to the judge’s interpretation of the Constitution, the power to establish voter qualifications belongs to the states rather than Congress. He therefore concluded that the federal government could not use the statute to prosecute Cox, while noting that Florida itself could pursue the conduct under state law.

The ruling has immediately attracted political attention because noncitizen voting has become a significant issue in the national debate over election administration. The Trump administration has made citizenship verification and enforcement against alleged noncitizen voting a major part of its election-related agenda.

The Justice Department has already moved to appeal Leibowitz’s decision, according to CBS News. That means the legal dispute is not necessarily over. An appellate court could review the constitutional reasoning, and the issue could potentially move through additional levels of the federal judiciary.

Leibowitz’s appointment is also receiving attention. The Federal Judicial Center records that President Joe Biden nominated him to the Southern District of Florida in January 2024, and the Senate confirmed him in February 2024.

However, the fact that a judge was appointed by a particular president does not by itself establish the legal correctness of a ruling. Federal judges decide individual cases by interpreting statutes and constitutional provisions, and their decisions can be reviewed by higher courts.

That distinction is important in this case because the ruling represents a particular constitutional interpretation rather than a final nationwide determination by the Supreme Court.

The government argued that Congress possesses substantial authority over immigration, foreign affairs, and federal elections. Prosecutors maintained that those powers supported the federal law criminalizing noncitizen voting.

Leibowitz rejected that reasoning. He concluded that congressional authority over elections and immigration does not automatically give Congress unrestricted power to determine voter qualifications. CBS reported that the judge viewed the government’s principal constitutional argument as relying heavily on Supreme Court precedent that he considered insufficient to sustain the statute.

The government may therefore have several constitutional arguments to present on appeal.

One important issue involves the relationship between state and federal authority. The Constitution establishes a federal system in which states retain substantial responsibility for administering elections, while Congress also possesses important powers concerning federal elections. Determining where those powers begin and end is at the heart of the dispute.

Another issue concerns Supreme Court precedent. Critics of Leibowitz’s reasoning have pointed to decisions involving congressional authority over federal elections and restrictions affecting noncitizens. Supporters of the ruling emphasize the constitutional language assigning voter qualifications to the states.

Because these arguments involve constitutional interpretation, the eventual outcome could have consequences beyond the individual defendant.

The circumstances surrounding Cox’s alleged voting have also attracted attention. According to court-related reporting, Cox entered the United States as a tourist in 1999 and remained after her visa expired. Prosecutors alleged that she later used fraudulent documentation to obtain identification and register to vote. Records indicated that she voted in federal elections from 2012 through 2020, although the federal prosecution concerned only the 2020 vote because of the applicable statute of limitations.

Importantly, the judge’s ruling did not determine that Cox was entitled to vote as a noncitizen. Instead, the constitutional issue was whether the federal government had authority to prosecute her under the particular federal statute.

That distinction is central to understanding the case.

It is also important not to confuse this ruling with the broader question of whether noncitizens vote in American elections. Noncitizen voting remains prohibited by state law throughout the country, and federal laws other than Section 611 can also apply to conduct involving false claims of citizenship. CBS specifically noted that Leibowitz’s decision does not invalidate a separate federal law prohibiting false claims of citizenship made in connection with voting.

The broader frequency of noncitizen voting is another disputed subject. Reuters reported that the Justice Department had charged at least 60 people with noncitizen voting since January 2025, while its investigation found that many defendants were lawful permanent residents who allegedly registered mistakenly or received incorrect guidance from election workers or government officials.

Those facts illustrate why individual cases need to be separated from broader claims about election systems.

For supporters of stronger federal enforcement, the ruling raises concerns about whether federal prosecutors have sufficient authority to pursue cases involving noncitizen voting. For opponents of federal enforcement under Section 611, the ruling reinforces their argument that states should control voter qualifications and that Congress exceeded its constitutional authority.

The next stage of the case could provide additional clarity.

Because Leibowitz is a district judge, his decision is not binding on federal judges nationwide. Other courts considering similar cases may reach different conclusions. Reuters reported that other defendants have challenged the same federal statute on similar constitutional grounds, meaning additional courts could eventually address the issue.

For voters following the story, the most important point is that this is a constitutional dispute over federal authority, not a ruling declaring that noncitizens generally have a right to vote in American elections.

The case demonstrates how a single criminal prosecution can raise a much larger constitutional question. It also shows why headlines about court decisions need to be read carefully. “Judge rules noncitizen voting law unconstitutional” can sound like the entire nation’s voting laws have changed overnight. The actual decision is narrower: one federal judge dismissed one federal prosecution after finding that the specific federal statute used against the defendant exceeded Congress’s constitutional authority.

The Justice Department’s appeal could now bring the issue before a higher court.

Until that process is resolved, the ruling remains an important but limited decision in an ongoing constitutional dispute. The central question is not simply whether noncitizens should be permitted to vote. Rather, it is which level of government has the constitutional authority to establish and enforce the rules governing voter qualifications in federal elections.

That question could make this case significant well beyond Florida and could shape future litigation over the federal government’s role in election enforcement.

For now, the ruling applies to Cox, Florida retains authority under its own laws, and the federal government’s challenge to the decision is moving forward.