Five defendants ask Miami judge to strike down federal ban on noncitizen voting

A federal judge in Miami will hear oral arguments this week in a constitutional challenge to 18 U.S.C. Section 611 brought by five defendants who face federal charges for voting as noncitizens (per Washington Examiner).

The challengers asked the court to declare the statute unconstitutional, saying Congress never had authority to criminalize noncitizen voting and that states — not the federal government — hold the power to enforce voter-citizenship rules under Article I, the 17th Amendment, and Article II (per Washington Examiner).

The statute at issue, enacted in the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, makes noncitizen voting in federal-office elections a federal crime punishable by fines up to $100,000 and up to one year in prison (per Washington Examiner).

The defendants’ legal theory centers on federalism: they contend that deciding who may vote in state-administered elections is a core state prerogative and that Congress overstepped when it criminalized noncitizen voting for federal offices (per Washington Examiner).

The Washington Examiner notes the law saw spotty enforcement for years, with Reuters reporting some fines as low as $150, but prosecutions rose under the Trump administration and were sometimes paired with deportation proceedings, a fact the defendants’ lawyers and critics of the statute cite to argue selective or politically-driven enforcement (per Washington Examiner).

Prosecutors, by contrast, have continued to rely on Section 611 to pursue defendants they say knowingly voted while ineligible; the Examiner frames the court challenge as a jurisdictional attack that seeks to avoid contesting the underlying factual allegations in individual cases (per Washington Examiner).

What happens in Miami could determine whether federal prosecutors retain a tool to bring criminal charges for noncitizen voting in federal-office elections, and a ruling that the statute is unconstitutional would likely void the federal charges against these five defendants (per Washington Examiner).

• Only the Washington Examiner is provided; it frames the defendants’ challenge as a jurisdictional strategy and emphasizes that prosecutors increased use of the statute in recent years (per Washington Examiner).

• The single source characterizes the defendants’ move as an attempt to avoid factual disputes but offers no independent verification of the defendants’ factual claims or of prosecutors’ internal policies (per Washington Examiner).

• No source in this pack names the five defendants by name or provides the specific jurisdictions where their charges originated; readers lack those identities and case details (per Washington Examiner).
• No source mentions whether state laws or prosecutions for noncitizen voting exist in the jurisdictions tied to these cases.
• No source cites any prior judicial rulings directly on the constitutionality of Section 611 or circuit splits that would affect appeal outcomes.
• No source discusses how election administration mechanics (registration systems, proof-of-citizenship rules) in the affected states interact with Section 611 enforcement.

• Only one set of penalty figures appears: the Examiner reports fines up to $100,000 and up to one year in prison; Reuters (mentioned within the Examiner) reportedly noted some fines as low as $150 for past enforcement (per Washington Examiner).

• The Examiner reports that prosecutions increased under the Trump administration and were sometimes paired with deportation proceedings, which the article presents as a prior enforcement trend that preceded the defendants’ constitutional challenge (per Washington Examiner).

• The claim that Congress lacked authority is attributed to the defendants; the claim that prosecutors increased enforcement is reported by the Examiner with attribution to Reuters for some enforcement examples (per Washington Examiner).