The 6th Circuit refused to hand federal prosecutors Michigan's unredacted voter file. In a 2-1 decision issued June 24, a three-judge panel barred the Justice Department from obtaining the statewide list that contains names, full birth dates, driver license numbers and partial Social Security numbers. Judge Andre Mathis wrote the majority opinion, joined by Judge R. Guy Cole Jr.; Judge John B. Nalbandian dissented. The ruling affirms a lower court order and leaves Michigan in control of which fields it shares, the first appeals-court decision in the Justice Department's nationwide push.

Judge Andre Mathis read the opinion from the bench as lawyers and court staff listened, framing the case as both a statutory and procedural rebuke of the Justice Department's demand. Mathis said the 1960 federal civil rights provision the government relied on "gave the government power to ensure that everyone who had the right to vote could freely exercise that right, but today, the government invokes Title III for an inverse purpose, to ensure that some people haven't voted." Mathis added that the department failed to supply a statutorily required statement setting out both the basis and purpose for its request, a procedural omission that undercut its claim.

What the court said

The 6th Circuit held that the narrow text of the statute cited by the Justice Department didn't authorize its broad demand for sensitive identifying information from Michigan's qualified voter file. The panel affirmed a district court decision that had dismissed the department's suit and concluded Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson was not required to hand over unredacted voter data. At the district level, Judge Hala Jarbou in Michigan had warned that a contrary reading could impose an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote.

Michigan had provided the public version of its voter rolls but refused to disclose confidential fields. Those confidential fields include full dates of birth, driver license numbers and partial Social Security numbers tied to registered voters. The appeals court left in place the lower court's limitation, effectively restricting the Justice Department to what a member of the public may request from Michigan's rolls.

The opinion emphasized two discrete points. First, the statutory language that the department invoked didn't clearly reach the sort of unredacted statewide files the government sought. Second, the Justice Department didn't follow the notice requirements spelled out by the statute when it made its request to Secretary Benson. Because the department didn't provide the required statement of basis and purpose, Mathis wrote, Benson didn't violate Title III by declining to produce Michigan's unredacted qualified voter file.

Mastheads

Broader fight over voter rolls

The Michigan case is one piece of a larger dispute that began last year, when the Justice Department sent letters to election officials in nearly every state and the District of Columbia seeking statewide voter registration lists with sensitive fields. The department said it needed the data to review compliance with list-maintenance obligations under the Help America Vote Act and the National Voter Registration Act.

When states pushed back, the Justice Department sued about 30 states and the District of Columbia to compel production of unredacted files.

Court responses have been mixed. Several district courts across the country rejected the Justice Department's claims, and some states voluntarily turned over the requested data. Reporting has identified at least a group of states that did share their files while many states, including some led by Republicans, resisted. The 6th Circuit's decision makes it the first appeals court to resolve one of the department's challenges, while other suits and rulings remain active in different jurisdictions.

For Michigan the practical effect is immediate. Secretary Benson argued that any access by the Justice Department should mirror what a member of the public may request, a posture the appeals court preserved by affirming the district court. That means Michigan retains control over which portions of its voter registration file are disclosed to the federal government and which remain confidential.

The Justice Department had framed its letters and suits as part of a compliance review of list maintenance. State officials who declined to turn over sensitive fields raised privacy concerns and disputed the department's reading of the statutes. The 6th Circuit majority declined the department's expansive interpretation, centering its analysis on the statutory text and on the department's procedural omissions when making its demand.

Judge John B. Nalbandian filed the lone dissent in the 2-1 opinion.

The dissent didn't persuade the majority, which relied on both statutory construction and the procedural defect to deny the government the unredacted data. The panel issued its opinion on Wednesday, June 24, 2026.

Related Articles

The 6th Circuit's opinion leaves Michigan free to disclose only what a member of the public may request and stands as the first appellate ruling in the broader fight over state voter-roll demands. As Mathis said from the bench, the government 'invokes Title III for an inverse purpose, to ensure that some people haven't voted.'

This article was created with AI assistance.