The fight over voter data reached a turning point on Wednesday when a federal appeals court rejected the Department of Justice’s attempt to force Michigan to hand over its voter rolls, including sensitive personal information. The decision stands as the most significant judicial rebuke yet to the federal government’s sweeping effort to gather private voter data from across the country.

A Setback for a Nationwide Effort

The ruling strikes a serious blow to the Justice Department’s ambition to assemble the largest collection of national voter roll data ever compiled. That undertaking is part of a broader administration-wide campaign by President Trump and his allies to uncover evidence of voter fraud.

So far, that search has come up largely empty. Critics argue the effort is less about rooting out fraud and more about sowing distrust in elections while raising new obstacles to voting.

The resistance from states has been substantial. Since the department began demanding voter rolls last year, more than half of all states have refused to comply. In response, the department sued 30 states along with Washington, D.C., to try to compel them to turn over the data.

A Losing Streak in the Courts

Those lawsuits have not gone well for the government. The Justice Department has lost nine cases in federal court so far, including one in Maryland just last Thursday, and has yet to win a single one.

Wednesday’s decision carried added weight because it marked the first time an appeals court weighed in on the matter, potentially setting the stage for an eventual showdown at the Supreme Court.

Why the Court Rejected the Demand

The appellate panel took direct aim at the government’s legal reasoning. The administration had relied on the Civil Rights Act of 1960 to justify its demand for voter data, but the judges found that the law did not actually require states to hand over any such material.

The court also challenged the government’s characterization of how state voter lists are created. In a particularly pointed observation, the judges noted that the federal government was using a law designed to protect the right to vote for what they called an inverse purpose, namely to verify that some people had not voted.

The ruling came down 2-1. Judge Andre Mathis, a Biden appointee, wrote the majority opinion, joined by Judge R. Guy Cole Jr., who was appointed by Bill Clinton. Judge John B. Nalbandian, appointed by Trump during his first term, dissented, arguing that the Civil Rights Act did grant the government the authority to demand the voter files.

The Justice Department did not respond to requests for comment.

A Broader Pattern of Rejection

This decision affirmed an earlier lower-court ruling from February by Judge Hala Y. Jarbou, who was also appointed by Trump in his first term. Judge Jarbou rejected the administration’s claim that it was entitled to Michigan voters’ personal information in order to prevent ineligible voters and combat what it labeled voter fraud.

She concluded that neither the Help America Vote Act nor the National Voter Registration Act required disclosure of the records, and that the Civil Rights Act simply did not apply to a statewide computerized voter list.

What stands out about the broader legal battle is that the rebukes have come from judges across the political spectrum. Of the nine federal judges who have rejected the department’s efforts, five were appointed by Trump himself.

In the Maryland case, Trump-appointed Judge Stephanie Gallagher wrote that she was joining every court to have addressed the issue in concluding that a private, unredacted state voter list is not a record a state must hand over to the federal government under the Civil Rights Act.

Some rulings have gone even further. Back in February, Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai, a Biden appointee, suggested that the Justice Department’s own public statements and actions had forfeited the trust courts traditionally extend to federal law enforcement. He wrote that the presumption the department could be taken at its word no longer held, and that its assurances about keeping data private must be carefully scrutinized against its contradictory public statements.

The Political Backdrop

The court fight is unfolding against a charged political backdrop. Trump has renewed his push for new federal legislation that would impose fresh voting restrictions, including a requirement that people provide proof of citizenship before registering to vote.

In a striking move tied to that effort, the president canceled the signing of a celebrated bipartisan housing measure, demanding that Republicans first pass the SAVE America Act.

For now, the appeals court ruling reinforces a clear trend: courts on both sides of the aisle have repeatedly refused to grant the federal government access to states’ private voter data. Whether the administration escalates the fight to the Supreme Court may determine the next chapter in this ongoing battle over election records and voter privacy.