The U.S. Department of Justice on Wednesday suggested to a federal appeals court that upholding a lower court decision blocking the Trump administration’s access to sensitive voter data would weaken its ability to investigate racial discrimination in voting.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held oral arguments on whether to reverse a district court judge’s opinion that Michigan doesn’t have to provide the Justice Department with its unredacted voter list that contains dates of birth, driver’s license and partial Social Security numbers. 

At the core of the case is how federal courts should interpret the 1960 Civil Rights Act, which grants the U.S. attorney general broad access to documents and records that “come into the possession” of election officials. Congress passed the law to empower investigations into voting discrimination against Black citizens. 

A lawyer for the Trump administration on Wednesday sought to discredit the logic behind the district court judge’s decision. He said the decision would have hampered 1960s era investigations into discrimination against Black voters if it had been in place at that time. An assistant Michigan attorney general called that a major misreading of the law.

The judges did not meaningfully suggest which argument they found persuasive.

The Justice Department has sued 30 states and the District of Columbia over their refusal to turn over the data. At least 15 conservative states have voluntarily provided the information, which the Trump administration plans to feed into a Department of Homeland Security computer program to identify potential noncitizen voters.

Democrats and voting rights advocates have raised privacy concerns about the Trump administration’s plans for the data. They also say Homeland Security has wrongly flagged voters as potential noncitizens and that the administration is seeking to build a national voter list.

The Justice Department’s courtroom argument on Wednesday came amid the backdrop of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision two weeks ago to severely weaken the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which was intended to stamp out discriminatory voting laws in the South. Trump has cheered the ruling and Republican state lawmakers in Southern states are rushing to draw new congressional maps that could oust Black Democrats.

Debate over Civil Rights Act

U.S District Court Judge Hala Jarbou, an appointee of President Donald Trump, in February ruled that the Justice Department isn’t entitled to voters’ data. Michigan’s voter registration database is a record created by state officials, not a document that comes into their possession, she reasoned.

On Wednesday, Justice Department attorney David Goldman told a panel of three appellate judges that Jarbou had created a “carveout” in the Civil Rights Act not rooted in the law. 

“It carves a hole in the attorney general’s investigative authority so gaping that the most blatant civil rights violations of the 1960s could have marched right through it,” Goldman said.

Michigan Assistant Attorney General Heather Meingast, representing Michigan Democratic Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, told the judges that the Justice Department’s demand is unprecedented and unsupported by federal law. 

The state’s voter registration database includes voter information but isn’t a document under the Civil Rights Act, Meingast argued. The database is dynamic, she said, constantly changing as voters are added and removed.

“It doesn’t seem to meet the test of what the (Civil Rights Act) was talking about in the 60s,” Meingast said. “And the purpose was voters turning in their documents, their applications, their poll taxes.”

Judges don’t tip hand

The case is being heard by Senior Judge R. Guy Cole, Jr., a Clinton appointee; Judge Andre B. Mathis, a Biden appointee; and Judge John B. Nalbandian, a Trump appointee.

Much of the judges’ questions centered on what it means for records to “come into the possession” of election officials. The judges posed skeptical questions to both sides, leaving it unclear who will prevail.

One judge likened the voter database to baking a cake, an image used in a brief filed by voters and civic groups in the case. Anyone baking a cake wouldn’t say they “came into possession” of a cake, the judge said.

“What about common sense?” the judge said.

The 6th Circuit, based in Cincinnati, provided an audio-only livestream of the arguments and the judges didn’t identify themselves when speaking. Courthouse News Service reported the judge who made the remark was Nalbandian.

The oral arguments lasted about 40 minutes. The three-judge panel gave no deadline for issuing an opinion.

Other cases

In the Justice Department’s voter data lawsuits, six district court judges have ruled against the Trump administration — in Arizona, California, Massachusetts, Oregon and Rhode Island, in addition to Michigan. The Michigan case is the first to reach oral argument before an appellate court. Oral arguments are set for next week in appeals of the DOJ’s losses in California and Oregon.

The appellate cases mark the next stage of the Justice Department’s year-long campaign for state voter data. DOJ attorneys have urged appeals courts to move quickly, arguing that the security of the November midterm elections is at stake.

On Tuesday, the Justice Department released an opinion from its Office of Legal Counsel, which provides legal advice to executive branch agencies, that supports the DOJ’s efforts to obtain state voter data. DOJ attorneys immediately filed the opinion in the Michigan appeal in a last-minute bid to bolster their case before oral arguments.

“It’s memorializing advice that was given in early to mid-September,” Goldman said — the same time period when the Justice Department began suing states for refusing to turn over voter data.

Aria Branch, an attorney at the Elias Law Group representing voters and a civic group in the case, noted that six courts have already ruled against the Justice Department. 

“DOJ’s attempt to exploit the Civil Rights Act for its current dragnet simply resembles trying to fit a square peg into a round hole,” Branch told the judges. “It simply doesn’t work.”

As appeals courts split on the constitutionality of mandatory detention for millions of immigrants, the U.S. Supreme Court is likely to decide the matter.

A Trump administration policy threatening imprisonment without bond has been struck down by three appeals courts, which could soon be joined by a fourth, but upheld by two others. The conflicting orders mean the Supreme Court must straighten out the situation as immigrants now could face different fates in different states.

The new detention policy, implemented in a July 2025 memo, threatens millions of immigrants with imprisonment without bond if they crossed a border illegally to get into the United States, no matter how long ago or whether they’ve applied for asylum. Without bond means they must be detained while awaiting court action.

The policy is a key part of the Trump administration’s stated goal to get 1 million removals a year, including deportations and voluntary returns.

So far the pace is about half that, or roughly 460,000 for the current fiscal year, if the daily rate as of mid-April continues, according to an analysis by Austin Kocher, a research assistant professor at Syracuse University.

This spring’s mixed appeals court rulings mean that in some states, detainees may be offered bond hearings and a chance to be released pending new court dates. In other states, people can now be held indefinitely.

Most recently, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, covering Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee,  struck down the policy Monday, saying it “strains reason” to suggest Congress intended to put millions of people into immigration detention. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, covering Alabama, Florida and Georgia, also struck it down last week, saying the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 does not give President Donald Trump “unfettered authority to detain, without the possibility of bond, every unadmitted alien present in the country.”

In April, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, covering Connecticut, New York and Vermont, also struck down the policy, calling it “the broadest mass-detention-without-bond mandate in our Nation’s history for millions of noncitizens.”

Judges in another appeals court covering New England states, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, appeared skeptical of the policy in a hearing this month but have not yet ruled.

Meanwhile the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, encompassing Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, upheld the new policy, saying the status quo gives people living here illegally more rights than those at the border seeking legal admission.

“It seems strange to suggest that Congress would have preserved bond hearings exclusively for unlawful entrants,” the 5th Circuit ruling said. Those states have some of the largest detention centers in the country, often accepting transfers from other states. The cross-state transfers complicate legal cases attempting to free those detained there.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, covering Arkansas and several Midwestern states, also upheld the Trump policy.

Conflicting appeals rulings like these, known as “circuit splits,” generally lead to a Supreme Court ruling to settle them, experts say.

The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to a Stateline request for comment. Last July, a department spokesperson told The Associated Press that “President (Donald) Trump and Secretary (Kristi) Noem are now enforcing this law as it was actually written to keep America safe.”

The Trump administration policy flies in the face of decades of federal practice that let many immigrants stay free on bond while they pursue their court cases, said Vanessa Dojaquez-Torres, practice and policy counsel at the American Immigration Lawyers Association, a trade group.

“This has done a lot of damage to people who are caught in detention with a very low amount of due process,” Dojaquez-Torres said.

The policy has also flooded federal courts with petitions for release by people denied bond under the policy, she added. Thousands were filed each week from January through late April, compared with a few dozen a week last year before the policy was enacted, according to a ProPublica report.

The threat of indefinite detention can be an incentive for immigrants who have been arrested to agree to the administration’s option of “voluntary departure.”

Hannia Ortega, who left Oklahoma for her native Mexico at age 22 last fall to avoid the threat of detention, said the policy has “helped me not to regret leaving.”

“I’ve had the opportunity to meet people here who were deported and were not given the chance to fight their cases in front of a judge. One of the people I met was an Uber driver who was deported after 36 years in the states,” Ortega wrote in an email to Stateline.

Ortega won an award for leadership and good grades in a Tulsa high school, and said she also earned a community college degree there with the help of a private scholarship for students living in the country illegally.

She decided staying in the U.S. was too risky. Her parents brought her illegally as a 6-year-old and she did not qualify for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, known as DACA, a program with some deportation protections.

“It is scary and just speaks to how dangerous it has gotten for every single immigrant in the United States. I pray that better days are ahead for all but it seems unlikely any time soon,” Ortega wrote.

It’s hard to tell exactly how many immigrants are threatened with indefinite detention, but of about 14.6 million undocumented residents, the Center for Migration Studies estimates, something like 5.5 million could have entered the country illegally, making them subject to the detention policy.

There are no recent estimates for the percentage, said Robert Warren, senior visiting fellow at the Center for Migration Studies of New York. But in 2017 the center estimated 38% of unauthorized immigrants crossed the border illegally either by evading border patrol officers or surrendering to them and getting a court notice to fight deportation proceedings. Others overstayed legal visas and would not be subject to the new policy.

Mustafa Cetin, a New Jersey immigration attorney, said two of his clients from Turkey were denied bond despite a clean criminal record and active asylum cases in court. Both were arrested in October during routine check-ins with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, he said.

Both won release on bond through federal court decisions, and one has already won an asylum case, he said. Both followed a familiar pattern of seeking asylum in 2023 and 2024.

“They say, ‘Don’t come in,’ but if you come in, they will process you (with a court appearance ticket),” Cetin said. “We’ve seen this play out for hundreds of thousands of people. Then, this administration, instead of trying to deal with those who come to the border, they decided to scare people away.”

Stateline reporter Tim Henderson can be reached at thenderson@stateline.org.

An appeals court on Friday struck down the Trump administration’s closing of United States borders to asylum-seekers. 

An executive order by President Donald Trump on Inauguration Day last year, and later guidance to turn asylum-seekers around without a court hearing, are “unlawful” and “cast aside federal laws affording individuals the right to apply and be considered for asylum,” according to the ruling by a panel of the District of Columbia U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Advocates sued and said the administration’s action violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the right to seek asylum based on fears of persecution.

Trump’s proclamation on Jan. 20, 2025, said “the sheer number of aliens entering the United States has overwhelmed the system and rendered many of the INA’s provisions ineffective,” and that  “an invasion is ongoing at the southern border, which requires the Federal Government to take measures to fulfill its obligation to the States.”

The executive order, along with later guidance, required anyone crossing the border without permission to be turned around or quickly deported without a court date. As of March, about 2.7 million people had been released at the border with immigration court cases in recent years, according to a Stateline analysis. 

Those numbers peaked at more than 100,000 a month at times in 2023 during the Biden administration, and dropped quickly to a few hundred a month after Trump’s 2025 order. 

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, speaking on Fox News, blamed the ruling on politics and called it “unsurprising.” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said the Department of Justice would seek further review of the decision. “We are sure we will be vindicated,” she wrote in an emailed statement to The Associated Press.

Stateline reporter Tim Henderson can be reached at thenderson@stateline.org.