A Biden-appointed federal judge in Miami has thrown out a federal case against a noncitizen who voted in the 2020 election, ruling that Congress never had the authority to ban noncitizens from voting in the first place.
U.S. District Judge David Leibowitz, appointed to the bench by Joe Biden in 2024, dismissed the case against Chelsea Michelle Ann Cox, a Jamaican national charged last October with voting in the 2020 election in Broward County despite knowing she was not a U.S. citizen. In a 31-page opinion, Leibowitz claimed the 1996 federal law prohibiting noncitizens from voting in federal elections is unconstitutional — a violation, he wrote, of Article I, Article II, and the 17th Amendment.
"When you're prosecuted based on a law that Congress did not have the authority to pass, the prosecution cannot stand," Leibowitz wrote in his opinion.
The law he struck down was passed by a Republican-controlled Congress and signed by Democratic President Bill Clinton in 1996. It carries penalties of up to a year in prison and fines. According to the Washington Times, by way of WorldNetDaily and The Daily Signal, Leibowitz did not formally strike down the statute outright — for now, his ruling applies only to Cox's misdemeanor case. But the reasoning, if upheld, could reshape dozens of pending noncitizen voting prosecutions nationwide.
The case against Cox was more than a paperwork violation. Federal prosecutors say she used a fake birth certificate — falsely claiming she was born in the U.S. Virgin Islands — to obtain a Florida driver's license and register to vote. Prosecutors also allege she voted in the 2012, 2016, and 2018 elections, though those alleged offenses fell outside the statute of limitations. That timing detail cuts both ways: even if the older votes had been inside the window, Leibowitz's ruling suggests he would have dismissed them anyway.
Federal prosecutors pushed back hard on the constitutional claim. They argued that Congress's power over immigration gives it the right to exclude noncitizens from voting, and they pointed to a 1970 Supreme Court case upholding Congress's authority to lower the voting age to 18 as precedent that lawmakers can set rules for federal elections. Leibowitz rejected that argument, contending that while Congress can regulate the "times, places, and manner" of federal elections, that power cannot be stretched to bar noncitizens from the ballot. He even cited the fact that noncitizens voted in the original 13 colonies.
The ruling lands in the middle of a coordinated federal crackdown. The Trump administration's Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security have been actively prosecuting noncitizens who voted, and congressional Republicans have pushed the SAVE Act, which would require proof of citizenship to register to vote. Reuters, reporting on the decision via the Election Law Blog, framed it as "a blow to the Trump administration's campaign against alleged election fraud."
Legal observers on the right see a broader strategy at work. The Gateway Pundit's Jim Hoft called Leibowitz a "Biden commie judge" and noted the ruling came in a case brought by federal prosecutors under federal law. The Daily Signal's Fred Lucas reported that Leibowitz acknowledged states could still impose their own bans — meaning the practical effect in Florida, which has its own citizenship requirements, may be limited. But the precedent matters far beyond one migrant's misdemeanor.
It is not yet known whether federal prosecutors will appeal. The ruling does not invalidate the 1996 statute across the country, and no other court has yet adopted Leibowitz's reasoning. But the case is now part of a growing legal fight over who gets to decide voter eligibility in America — and whether Congress has any say at all when it comes to keeping noncitizens off federal ballots.
Our Take
Read that ruling again. A federal judge, appointed by Joe Biden less than two years ago, just told the American people that their elected representatives in Congress have no power to stop foreign nationals from voting in American elections. Not that the law was poorly written. Not that the prosecution was flawed. That the law itself — passed by Congress, signed by a Democratic president, on the books for three decades — is illegitimate.
This is what the Left means when they talk about "democracy." A Jamaican national allegedly fakes a birth certificate, gets a Florida driver's license, registers to vote, and casts ballots in election after election — and the response from a Biden judge is that the federal government had no business prosecuting her. If that doesn't chill you, nothing will. This isn't a border policy debate or a paperwork dispute. This is whether the votes of American citizens can be diluted by people who have no legal right to be here, let alone to choose our leaders.
Notice the sleight of hand. Leibowitz says states can ban noncitizen voting — how generous. But the entire architecture of federal election law, including the SAVE Act that Republicans are fighting to pass right now, exists precisely because some states won't. Sanctuary jurisdictions, lax registration systems, and mail-in ballot free-for-alls have already turned parts of this country into a joke. Now a federal judge is handing them a constitutional shield.
And ask yourself why this case matters so much. Chelsea Cox is one person. But the reasoning applies to every noncitizen who ever cast a ballot — and to every future prosecution the Trump Justice Department tries to bring. That's the game. One ruling, one case, one judge, and suddenly the federal government's ability to defend the integrity of its own elections is in question.
The 1996 law was passed with bipartisan support and signed by Bill Clinton. It was considered common sense for a quarter century. Now it's "unconstitutional."
