A federal judge in Miami has dismissed a criminal case against a noncitizen accused of voting in a federal election, ruling that Congress lacked constitutional authority to enact the federal statute used to prosecute her.
U.S. District Judge David S. Leibowitz of the Southern District of Florida issued the 31-page ruling Wednesday in United States v. Cox.
Leibowitz was nominated to the federal bench by former President Joe Biden in 2024.
The ruling applies specifically to defendant Chelsea Michelle Ann Cox and does not bind other federal courts.
Cox, a Jamaican national, was charged by federal prosecutors in October 2025 under 18 U.S.C. § 611.
That federal law, enacted in 1996, makes it unlawful for a noncitizen to vote in an election for federal office.
A conviction under the statute can carry up to one year in prison as well as a fine.
According to government filings cited in the report, Cox entered the United States on a tourist visa in 1999 and later overstayed it.
Prosecutors alleged that she subsequently used a fraudulent U.S. Virgin Islands birth certificate to obtain a Florida driver’s license and register to vote.
The government further alleged that Cox cast ballots in federal elections beginning in 2012.
That allegedly included voting in Broward County during the 2020 general election.
Leibowitz, however, concluded that Congress did not have the constitutional power to enact the statute under which Cox was charged.
“Congress has no power to say who can vote or who cannot vote in federal elections,” the judge wrote.
He characterized the question as involving a fundamental principle concerning how voting qualifications are determined under the Constitution.
“When you’re prosecuted based on a law that Congress did not have the authority to pass, the prosecution cannot stand,” Leibowitz wrote.
The judge concluded that the federal statute amounted to a voter-qualification law.
In his interpretation, the Constitution leaves the authority to determine voter qualifications to the states rather than Congress.
Leibowitz cited Article I, Article II and the Seventeenth Amendment, along with discussions from the 1787 Constitutional Convention.
He also distinguished Congress’ authority to regulate the “Times, Places and Manner” of federal elections from the power to determine who qualifies as a voter.
The judge sharply criticized one of the Justice Department’s principal arguments.
Leibowitz described the Supreme Court precedent relied upon by prosecutors as “very, very weak.”
“So why does the Government lead with such a weak hand?” he wrote. “Because it’s the best hand it can play.”
The decision does not mean noncitizens are now permitted to vote in Florida.
Leibowitz specifically noted that Florida law independently prohibits noncitizen voting.
State authorities can therefore prosecute conduct prohibited under Florida’s own election laws.
The ruling also did not address a separate federal offense involving false claims of U.S. citizenship made for purposes such as registering or voting, per Trending Politics.
The Justice Department quickly moved to challenge Leibowitz’s decision.
Federal prosecutors filed to appeal one day after the ruling.
The case will now head to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Department of Homeland Security General Counsel James Percival publicly criticized the decision.
“A Biden appointed judge in Florida says that federal bans on noncitizen voting are unconstitutional,” Percival wrote.
He characterized the ruling as treating conduct long prohibited by federal law as constitutionally protected, though Leibowitz’s order itself focused on Congress’ authority to enact the statute rather than declaring a general constitutional right for noncitizens to vote.
The practical reach of the decision remains limited for now.
The order dismisses the charge against Cox but does not automatically invalidate the federal law nationwide.
Other federal districts may continue applying the statute unless higher courts rule otherwise.
The Eleventh Circuit will now have an opportunity to review Leibowitz’s constitutional reasoning.
The dispute could eventually reach the Supreme Court if the litigation continues.
For now, the ruling creates a significant legal fight over an unusual question: whether the federal government itself has constitutional authority to criminalize noncitizen voting in federal elections, or whether that power belongs primarily to the states.
