A federal appeals court on Wednesday ruled the Department of Justice isn’t entitled to access the sensitive personal data of Michigan voters, a setback in President Donald Trump’s push to assert power over state-run elections.

The decision moves the country closer to a potential fight at the U.S. Supreme Court over state voter rolls ahead of the November midterm elections, with Michigan at the center. 

The Trump administration has sued 30 states for copies of their voter information. Federal officials want to run the data through a Department of Homeland Security computer program to identify possible noncitizen voters.

In a 2-1 decision, a three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Michigan Democratic Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson isn’t required to turn over sensitive voter data, including dates of birth, driver’s license and Social Security numbers of voters. The 6th Circuit is the first appellate court to weigh in on the voter roll lawsuits after a series of district court rulings against the DOJ.

The Justice Department had demanded Michigan’s voter roll under 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. 

Lower court affirmed

Wednesday’s opinion affirmed a February decision by U.S District Court Judge Hala Jarbou, a Trump appointee in the Western District of Michigan, who 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.

The appellate judges agreed, writing that making the state’s full voter roll subject to the Civil Rights Act would place Michigan officials on a “collision course” with the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act, two federal laws that require states to maintain and update voter registration lists.

The Civil Rights Act “tells election officials to retain and preserve certain records and papers that come into their possession, and the NVRA and HAVA tell election officials to remove ineligible voters from statewide voter registration lists,” Judge Andre B. Mathis, a President Joe Biden appointee, wrote in the majority opinion. 

“We should not adopt a reading that would place election officials in violation of one federal law for trying to comply with others,” Mathis added.

One member of the appellate panel, Judge John B. Nalbandian, a Trump appointee, wrote in a dissent that Michigan’s voter roll is a record that the Justice Department can demand under the Civil Rights Act. He argued that requiring Michigan to turn over the data wouldn’t conflict with the NVRA and HAVA.

DOJ sees ‘carveout’

During oral arguments in May, the Justice Department suggested that upholding the district court decision would weaken its ability to investigate racial discrimination in voting. DOJ attorney David Goldman told the panel that the district court judge had created a “carveout” in the Civil Rights Act not rooted in the law. 

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

“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.”

The Justice Department has been pursuing state voter rolls for more than a year. While some Republican-led states voluntarily provided the data, most states have resisted, leading to a wave of lawsuits. So far, no court has ruled in the DOJ’s favor.

Lawyers for the Justice Department have said the voter information would be shared with Homeland Security’s Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, or SAVE, system — a computer program that originally checked the eligibility of individual immigrants for government benefits that the Trump administration overhauled into a tool to verify citizenship.

On Monday, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., ruled that the changes to SAVE had been made illegally and that the Trump administration had violated the privacy of millions of Americans. The judge also noted that problems had been found with SAVE, including falsely flagging citizens.

The Justice Department didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. DOJ lawyers can ask the full 6th Circuit or Supreme Court to hear the case.

“The law cannot be any clearer– states run elections, the federal government is not entitled to Michigan voters’ personal data, and the president cannot change election law with the stroke of a pen,” Benson said in a statement.

The U.S. Postal Service won’t deliver mail ballots in states that refuse to turn over lists of voters under a proposed rule, the agency’s chief executive said Wednesday, angering Democrats who warn the decision will disenfranchise voters.

Postmaster General David Steiner defended the rule at a Senate hearing and dismissed accusations that the Postal Service was acting politically after President Donald Trump signed an executive order in March restricting voting by mail. 

“If a state refuses to turn their absentee voter list over to the federal government, will the Postal Service still mail their ballots under this proposed rule?” Sen. Gary Peters, a Michigan Democrat, asked Steiner.

“Under our proposed regulation, no,” Steiner replied.

Steiner’s testimony, before the Senate Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee, marked the clearest acknowledgment yet by a federal official that the rule threatens to upend voting by mail across the country. 

If the rule takes effect and Democratic-led states refuse to comply, the requirements would effectively limit mail voting to Republican-led states during November midterm elections to decide control of Congress.

The Postal Service put forward the rule after Trump ordered Steiner to require states to submit lists of anticipated mail voters to the agency as a condition of having ballots delivered. 

Trump cancels signing ceremony

The executive order is one of several steps the Trump administration has taken this year to influence how elections are administered, along with the Department of Justice suing states to obtain sensitive voter data.

Underscoring the depth of Trump’s interest, as Steiner was speaking Wednesday morning the president abruptly called off a U.S. Capitol ceremony to sign a bipartisan housing bill because of the Senate’s refusal to pass the SAVE America Act. The legislation would require voters to show documents, such as a birth certificate or passport, proving their citizenship.

“Now we have this new rule you’ve put out saying that states have to turn over their voting rolls and you, the U.S. Postal Service, will decide who’s approved to send their ballot through the mail,” Sen. Elissa Slotkin, a Michigan Democrat, said. “It’s just another backdoor way of trying to influence this election.“

Slotkin said Trump’s decision to cancel the housing bill signing demonstrated the “level of obsession this president has” over elections.

Turning over names 

Every state would have to provide the names of residents expected to vote by mail. Additionally, eight states and Washington, D.C., conduct elections by mailing all voters a ballot, meaning election officials would have to provide information on every voter. Those states include California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Vermont and Washington.

Trump and his aides argue the restrictions are needed to combat noncitizen voting, which occurs very rarely. Democrats and voting rights groups have sued over the order, arguing it’s an unconstitutional assertion of presidential authority over state-run elections. No judge has yet halted it.

Steiner sought to place himself outside the controversy and said, in response to a question, that the Postal Service would adhere to a court order blocking the rule if one were issued. Asked about the legal authority underlying the rule, he said he would “have to defer that to the courts to understand the authority.”

Steiner, who became the postmaster general in July 2025, cast the rule as primarily focused on best practices for election mail, a description that understates the scope of the proposal, which postal experts call unprecedented.

“I’m not a political person and the Postal Service is not a political organization,” Steiner said.

Dems urge Steiner to withdraw rule

Democrats expressed sharp disagreement with Steiner and accused him of folding to Trump’s efforts to exercise more control over elections. Steiner answers to the USPS Board of Governors, not the president, and his critics say he is endangering the agency’s independence by complying with the executive order.

Every Senate Democrat, as well as two independents who caucus with the party, on Tuesday signed a letter to Steiner urging him to withdraw the rule. The letter warns that aside from the rule’s legal and constitutional problems, it’s not feasible for state and local election officials to meet its requirements.

“The proposed regulation demands that the Postal Service set up an entirely new system and database to process and transmit millions of absentee ballots that is secure and accessible to every American election official, just months prior to a general election,” the letter says.

At Wednesday’s hearing, GOP senators mostly steered clear of the mail ballot rule, instead focusing on the official topic, the Postal Service’s finances. But Sen. Bernie Moreno, an Ohio Republican, accused Democrats of hypocrisy over their past support of the “For the People Act.” 

The sweeping bill, offered when Democrats last controlled Congress, would have required states to offer same-day voter registration and expand mail voting. Opponents said it amounted to nationalized elections.

“Three years later all of them are testifying, ‘It’s outrageous, President Trump is trying to nationalize elections.’ No, he’s not, he’s trying to get rid of voter fraud,” Moreno said, adding that Democrats had now “dug up from their bottom desk drawer” the Constitution.

“Should we get back to post office stuff now?” Moreno said.

“Absolutely,” Steiner replied.