A Biden-appointed federal judge has ruled that Congress has no constitutional power to enforce its nationwide ban on noncitizen voting against a Florida woman accused of casting a ballot in the 2020 presidential election.
That is the stunning conclusion U.S. District Judge David S. Leibowitz reached in a 31-page order dismissing the federal case against Chelsea Cox.
Leibowitz did not find that Cox was a citizen or eligible to vote.
He also did not dispute that Florida law bars noncitizens from voting.
Instead, he ruled that the federal government itself cannot prosecute her under 18 U.S.C. § 611 because the Constitution leaves voter qualifications to the states.
“Congress has no power to say who can vote or who cannot vote in federal elections,” Leibowitz wrote, according to the ruling. He called that foundational power one reserved to the states.
The decision immediately ignited outrage online:
Another current reaction emphasized both the federal-law ruling and the fact that Leibowitz was appointed by President Biden:
The ruling is real, it is new, and it is narrower than some of the viral headlines make it sound.
CBS News reported that Leibowitz issued the order Thursday, October 1, and that the Justice Department moved to appeal almost immediately. The decision applies to Cox’s prosecution; it does not automatically erase the federal law nationwide or bind every other judge.
CBS also reported that this appears to be the first time a federal court has held the decades-old statute unconstitutional. That alone makes the case a major test for the Eleventh Circuit—and potentially the Supreme Court after that.
The federal statute says it is unlawful for a noncitizen to vote in an election involving candidates for president, vice president, the Senate or the House. A violation can carry up to one year in prison.
Congress enacted that ban in 1996. For nearly 30 years, the basic principle behind it seemed obvious: people who are not American citizens do not get to choose America’s federal leaders.
Leibowitz’s ruling does not say states must allow noncitizens to vote. It says Congress used the wrong constitutional power to impose the rule nationally.
A Reuters report carried by Investing.com said Cox is a Jamaican national who was charged in October 2025 over a vote allegedly cast in the 2020 election. The judge’s order applies only to her case and is not binding on judges handling other prosecutions.
Federal prosecutors alleged that Cox entered the United States on a tourist visa in 1999, overstayed it, obtained a Florida driver’s license using a fraudulent U.S. Virgin Islands birth certificate, registered to vote in 2012 and cast ballots in multiple federal elections.
Those are allegations, but the case was not dismissed because prosecutors failed to identify a ballot or because Cox proved she was eligible.
It was dismissed because Leibowitz concluded Congress never had authority to enact the criminal statute used against her.
That distinction is exactly why this case matters.
Every state currently requires citizenship for voting in federal elections, and Florida can still prosecute alleged illegal voting under its own law.
A separate federal law covering false claims of U.S. citizenship also remains available when its elements can be proved.
But if Leibowitz’s constitutional theory survives appeal, the federal government could lose its direct ability to prosecute the act of noncitizen voting under Section 611—even when the ballot includes candidates for president or Congress.
Former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement played an important role in the case. Leibowitz appointed Clement, a respected conservative Supreme Court advocate, to submit an outside brief on the constitutional question.
Clement concluded that Congress likely overstepped its constitutional bounds because states, not the federal government, determine voter qualifications. Leibowitz adopted that basic view.
The Justice Department argued the opposite. It said the federal government has a constitutional role in protecting federal elections and the privileges of federal citizenship—and therefore must be able to exclude noncitizens from choosing federal officeholders.
Leibowitz rejected the government’s principal Supreme Court precedent as “very, very weak.” He wrote that prosecutors led with a weak hand because it was the best hand they could play.
The public reaction has extended well beyond this one case:
The case now belongs to the Eleventh Circuit, where the Trump administration will ask appellate judges to reverse Leibowitz and restore the charge.
The cleanest argument for reversal is also the most practical one: federal elections choose federal officials who exercise power over the entire country. Congress has long regulated the time, place and manner of congressional elections and enacted laws protecting federal ballots from fraud and corruption.
The appellate court will have to decide whether Section 611 protects that federal process or improperly creates a voter qualification that the Constitution leaves to the states.
No honest account of the ruling should claim that Leibowitz legalized noncitizen voting nationwide.
At the same time, the constitutional blow he delivered to federal enforcement is enormous.
A federal judge ruled that Congress cannot enforce its own criminal ban against a noncitizen accused of voting for president because, in his view, Congress lacked the power to pass that law.
That is an extraordinary holding. The Justice Department was right to appeal it immediately, and the Eleventh Circuit should take the case up quickly.
American citizenship must mean something at the ballot box. If federal law cannot protect that line in a federal election, Congress and the courts need to resolve the gap before it becomes a roadmap for dozens of other defendants.
Continue reading...
[ H/T WLT Report ]
