Judge Dismisses Case on Noncitizen Voting Law, Declares It Unconstitutional

A federal judge in Miami has dismissed a case against a Jamaican national charged with illegally voting, declaring the law she was accused under to be unconstitutional. U.S. District Judge David S. Leibowitz’s 31-page order determined that the statute, prohibiting non-U.S. citizens from voting in federal elections, conflicts with the Constitution.

Leibowitz ruled that the U.S. Constitution grants states the authority to set voter qualifications, not Congress. As a result, Chelsea Cox, charged in October 2025 for voting in 2020, cannot be prosecuted under this federal law. However, state authorities in Florida may pursue charges against Cox for unlawful voting under state law.

This decision pertains specifically to Cox’s case, marking the first instance where the statute has been ruled unconstitutional. The ruling could impact the Justice Department’s broader efforts to address noncitizen voting—a practice President Trump has often claimed is widespread, though experts argue it is rare.

“This is an unusual criminal case. It rests upon a forty-year-old federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 611, that prohibits the act of voting in a federal election by a non-U.S. citizen,” Leibowitz noted, highlighting the case’s uniqueness.

Following the ruling, the Justice Department announced plans to appeal. The decision does not affect another law that criminalizes false claims of citizenship to vote, which remains under the Department’s scrutiny.

In response to the decision, Cox’s attorney Bruce Udolf stated that his client felt relieved, noting ongoing discussions with the government about future proceedings regarding her immigration status. Court documents indicate Cox overstayed a visa and used a fraudulent document to obtain a driver’s license, alleging her participation in several elections since 2012.

Federal prosecutors had defended the statute, arguing that the federal government holds a significant role in election oversight. However, the judge found the government’s defense based weakly on a single Supreme Court case.

For further insight, Judge Leibowitz invited legal expert Paul Clement, a former solicitor general, to provide an analysis. Clement concluded that Congress had likely overreached in enacting the law, emphasizing states’ historical role in determining voter qualifications.