Appeals court rebuffs DOJ bid for Michigan voter-roll data—what next?

On June 24, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed a lower-court dismissal in United States v. Benson, No. 26-1225. The ruling blocks the Justice Department’s effort to compel Michigan election officials—led by Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson—to turn over an unredacted statewide voter registration list with sensitive personal identifiers beyond the public version.

What DOJ sought from Michigan

According to the Sixth Circuit’s opinion, DOJ demanded Michigan’s unredacted “qualified voter file” and insisted on far more than the information Michigan already makes available publicly. The government asked for voter data including dates of birth, partial Social Security numbers, and driver’s license numbers for every registered voter.

Michigan provided what the court described as a public version with personal identifying information redacted, refusing to produce the unredacted records DOJ requested.

Why the court said Title III couldn’t do that

The case turned on Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960, a law Congress enacted to help the Attorney General investigate voting discrimination by accessing certain election-related records.

The Sixth Circuit agreed with the lower court that DOJ could not use Title III—“in this posture”—to obtain the unredacted qualified voter file Michigan refused to provide. The majority’s key reasoning focused on the statute’s limit to records that election officials “come into” their possession, tied to records relating to application, registration, and similar acts. In the court’s view, Michigan officials created and maintained the qualified voter file rather than acquiring it from outside sources—so the statute did not authorize the demand as framed.

Why it matters beyond Michigan

This ruling is binding within the Sixth Circuit, but it also offers a practical nationwide signal: when the federal government seeks sensitive, unredacted voter-roll identifiers, courts may closely enforce the statutory text that limits what kinds of election records the government can compel—and what counts as records within the statute’s scope.

What to watch next

The Sixth Circuit’s decision means DOJ cannot force Michigan to provide the unredacted qualified voter file in the way requested in this case. What remains uncertain is how the Justice Department may respond procedurally—such as pursuing further review—and whether future requests, if any, are narrowed or reframed to fit within the court’s interpretation of Title III’s limits.

After the decision, Michigan Public Media reported that the White House signaled the ruling would not be the final word, and it could face further appeal. For voters and election administrators in other states, the near-term watchpoints are whether federal requests shift toward more limited records, and how other courts apply the Sixth Circuit’s statutory reasoning.

Sources

• U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Opinion, June 24, 2026) — United States v. Benson, No. 26-1225
• Associated Press — decision and practical stakes for voter privacy/election administration
• Michigan Public Media — immediate post-decision context and reported next-steps/expectations
• Michigan Attorney General press release (June 25, 2026) — framing of what the court blocked and why it matters