Miami Federal Judge Rules Federal Ban on Noncitizen Voting Unconstitutional in Broward Case

A federal judge in Miami has ruled that the federal law making it a crime for noncitizens to vote in federal elections is unconstitutional, at least as applied to one Broward County case, a decision that lands weeks before Florida's Nov. 3 midterm elections and that the Justice Department has already moved to appeal. U.S. District Judge David Leibowitz of the Southern District of Florida on Thursday, Oct. 1, dismissed the federal illegal-voting charge against Chelsea Michelle Ann Cox, a Jamaican national accused of casting a ballot in the 2020 presidential election.

In a 31-page opinion, Leibowitz, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, concluded that 18 U.S.C. 611, the federal statute that bars noncitizens from voting in federal elections, could not support the prosecution. The Constitution, he reasoned, generally leaves the question of who is eligible to vote to the states. Congress has power to regulate the procedures of federal elections, the judge wrote, but that authority generally does not extend to defining the electorate itself.

The ruling applies only to Cox's case. It appears to be the first time a court has declared the statute unconstitutional, according to reports on the decision. It does not change the rule that noncitizens may not vote in Florida, which is written into the state constitution, and it is not a finding that Cox did nothing wrong.

The case against Cox

Federal prosecutors charged Cox in October 2025 with a misdemeanor, alleging that she voted in Broward County in the 2020 election while knowing she was not a U.S. citizen, according to published reports. She has not been convicted of any crime, and the allegations against her have not been tested at trial.

Cox's legal challenge targeted the law itself, arguing that Congress lacked the power to make noncitizen voting in federal elections a federal crime. Leibowitz agreed and dismissed the charge. The dismissal rests entirely on the constitutional question of which level of government sets voter qualifications. It is not a ruling on whether Cox voted, whether she was eligible, or whether she might face consequences under other laws.

The judge's decision also does not address whether state prosecutors could bring their own charges. Florida law makes voting by an unqualified person a crime, and noncitizen voting cases in the state have often been handled by state attorneys and, more recently, with involvement from the state's election crimes office.

The constitutional reasoning

The opinion turns on a longstanding tension in American election law. Article I of the Constitution says that voters for the U.S. House shall have the qualifications required for voters of the most numerous branch of the state legislature, and the 17th Amendment applies the same rule to Senate elections. In other words, the Constitution ties eligibility to vote for Congress to whatever rules each state sets for its own legislative elections.

Separately, the Elections Clause gives states the power to set the times, places and manner of holding congressional elections, while allowing Congress to make or alter those regulations. Leibowitz drew a line between those two ideas: Congress can set rules for how elections are run, the judge concluded, but deciding who belongs in the electorate is generally a state matter.

The U.S. Supreme Court has touched on that distinction before. In a 2013 case involving Arizona's proof-of-citizenship requirement for voter registration, Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, the court indicated that the Elections Clause empowers Congress to regulate how federal elections are held but not who may vote in them. Leibowitz's ruling applies similar logic to a criminal statute.

Section 611 was added to federal law in 1996 as part of a broader immigration overhaul. For three decades it has been one of several tools federal prosecutors use against noncitizens who vote, alongside laws that make it a crime to falsely claim citizenship. The Miami ruling addresses only Section 611, not those other statutes.

Justice Department appeal

The Justice Department moved to appeal shortly after the decision. The case now heads to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, which hears federal appeals from Florida, Georgia and Alabama. The 11th Circuit could reverse the ruling, affirm it, or decide the case on narrower grounds.

A district court decision does not bind other judges, even in the same district, so the ruling does not immediately invalidate Section 611 elsewhere in Florida or the country. An appellate ruling would carry much greater weight, binding federal trial courts across the three states in the circuit. Whichever side loses at the 11th Circuit could then ask the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the question.

The scope of the decision also matters. Courts distinguish between a ruling that a law is unconstitutional in every application and one that finds it invalid in a particular case. Reports on the decision describe it as applying only to Cox, which leaves federal prosecutors free, for now, to continue bringing Section 611 cases in other courtrooms, though defendants elsewhere may cite Leibowitz's reasoning in seeking their own dismissals.

That dynamic could create uneven outcomes across federal courts until an appeals court weighs in. Defense lawyers in other noncitizen voting cases, in Florida and beyond, are likely to read the 31-page opinion closely as they decide whether to raise similar challenges.

The appeal arrives at a politically charged moment. Noncitizen voting has been a central theme for the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress, who have pushed legislation known as the SAVE Act to require documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections. Legal analysts, including at the Cato Institute, have noted that the reasoning in Leibowitz's opinion could have implications for that kind of federal legislation, since it questions how far Congress can go in setting voter qualifications.

Florida's own citizenship rule

For Florida voters, the most important point is that the state constitution already limits voting to U.S. citizens, independent of any federal law. In 2020, Florida voters approved Amendment 1, which changed the wording of Article VI, Section 2 of the Florida Constitution from saying that every citizen of the United States meeting age and residency requirements is a qualified elector to saying that only a citizen is a qualified elector.

Supporters of the amendment argued the earlier language did not explicitly exclude noncitizens and that the change would remove any doubt. The measure passed with about 79% of the vote on Nov. 3, 2020, and was approved in every county in the state, according to election results compiled by Ballotpedia.

Because the Constitution leaves voter qualifications to the states, the Florida provision is precisely the kind of rule the judge's reasoning treats as controlling. Noncitizens cannot lawfully register or vote in Florida, and state law provides criminal penalties for those who do. The ruling in Cox's case does not touch those state rules.

The case also has a local dimension. Broward County, where Cox is accused of voting, is Florida's second most populous county and home to large immigrant communities, including one of the country's biggest Jamaican diasporas. Election officials there, as across the state, rely on registration forms in which applicants attest under penalty of law that they are citizens.

State prosecutions and election security

Florida has made election integrity a political priority in recent years. In 2022, the Legislature created the Office of Election Crimes and Security within the Department of State, a unit tasked with investigating allegations of voter fraud and other election law violations. State officials have periodically announced arrests of people accused of voting while ineligible, including noncitizens and people barred from voting because of felony convictions.

Studies of noncitizen voting nationally have generally found it to be rare compared with the total number of ballots cast, though cases do surface, often when immigrants apply for citizenship or when election officials cross-check voter rolls against other government data. Florida's supervisors of elections routinely remove ineligible registrants from voter rolls based on information from state and federal agencies.

The federal ruling could shift more noncitizen voting cases to state courts if the appeal fails, since state prosecutors would not face the same constitutional question about congressional power. In Florida, that would put more responsibility on the state's election crimes office and local state attorneys.

What it means for the midterms

The ruling arrives about a month before the Nov. 3, 2026, general election, when Florida voters will choose a governor, members of Congress and state legislators. Election officials have stressed that the rules for who can vote this fall have not changed. Only U.S. citizens who are at least 18 years old, are Florida residents and are properly registered may cast ballots.

The decision is likely to become a talking point in campaigns, particularly in races where immigration and election security are central issues. Republicans have frequently cited noncitizen voting as a reason for stricter federal rules, while Democrats and voting rights groups have argued that such voting is exceedingly rare and that new requirements risk disenfranchising eligible citizens who lack ready access to documents such as passports or birth certificates.

For voters, the practical message is unchanged. Registering or voting while ineligible remains illegal in Florida, and anyone with questions about eligibility can contact the supervisor of elections in their county.

What's next

The 11th Circuit will set a briefing schedule for the Justice Department's appeal, and given typical appellate timelines, a decision appears unlikely before the midterm election. Legal observers will watch whether the appeals court addresses the constitutional question head-on or resolves the case on narrower grounds.

Congress could also respond. Lawmakers who back stricter federal voter-eligibility rules may cite the ruling as a reason to push for legislation or a constitutional amendment, while opponents may use it to question the reach of bills such as the SAVE Act.

Cox's legal status beyond the dismissed federal charge remains unclear from the public record. Whatever happens on appeal, the case has opened a significant debate over a basic question in American democracy: who decides who gets to vote.