Appeals Court Pushes DOJ to Justify Michigan Voter Roll Demands

Federal appeals court judges on Wednesday pressed the Justice Department on how to parse the phrase “come into possession” in a law the agency is using to try to force state elections officials to turn over unredacted voter rolls for its inspection.

According to DOJ attorney David N. Goldman, the phrase signals that an election official must at some point “have control” of the list. But the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit judges wondered why Congress used the phrase to mean that in the Civil Rights Act of 1960 if they could’ve written it more plainly.

“Do we just view the words ‘come into’ as surplus language?” asked Senior Judge R. Guy Cole Jr., a Clinton appointee. “I mean, the statute could very well just say ‘in possession.’”

Judge John B. Nalbandian asked about “common sense,” using the example of baking a cake.

“You don’t say, ‘I came into possession of it,’ I produced it, I produced it on my own. I didn’t acquire it, it didn’t come into my possession,” the Trump appointee said. “That would just be a really strange way to talk.”

Goldman held firm, saying, “If you asked me to inform you if I come into possession of dessert, and I bake a cake, I think that you would expect me to give you a call when I pull the cake out of the oven.”

First Argument

This was the first federal appellate argument on the Trump administration’s attempts to sue states into handing over voter rolls. While some Republican states complied, others rebuffed the demands; the DOJ has sued 30 states seeking voter roll access.

A second round of arguments for cases involving California and Oregon are set for next week in the Ninth Circuit.

Six federal trial judges have ruled on the issue on the merits, all against the Trump administration. Two, including a judge in Michigan, said federal law doesn’t classify voter rolls as a document that must be released, while four said the DOJ didn’t state a proper basis and purpose for its requests.

Goldman said the trial judge erred when she ruled in favor of Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (D) because she “created a carveout for any state-generated record.” He equated the administration’s efforts to those combating discrimination against Black voters in the American South more than six decades ago.

“That carveout has no root in the statutory text and 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.

‘Dragnet’

Assistant Michigan Attorney General Heather S. Meingast said the database doesn’t need to be disclosed because it’s constantly updated and won’t have information on “who was registered and eligible for the particular election” that must be retained under the law.

And Aria C. Branch, an Elias Law Group LLP attorney representing intervening voters and the Michigan Alliance for Retired Americans, said the “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.”

Biden-appointed Judge Andre B. Mathis also probed why the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel issued an advisory opinion only one day before arguments that said the agency had the power to seek state voter rolls and share that information with the Department of Homeland Security.

Goldman said it was memorializing advice the office gave in September and that drafting processes “take some time.”

Nalbandian also pressed Branch on whether certain documents elections officials create—giving hypotheticals from the 1960s such as records pertaining to poll taxes and literacy tests—could be obtained by the DOJ.

Branch affirmed her position that the Civil Rights Act doesn’t cover “self-generated records” or the information on the documents themselves but rather documents they receive.

The intervenors are also represented by Salvatore Prescott Porter & Porter Pllc.

The case is United States v. Benson, 6th Cir., No. 26-1225, oral arguments held 5/13/26.