The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has denied a petition for rehearing en banc in the case of United States v. Jocelyn Benson, No. 26-1225. This decision impacts the U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ) ability to access Michigan's voting records, raising significant questions about election integrity and state compliance with federal laws.

The case began when the DOJ sought access to Michigan's Qualified Voter File, which contains essential information for verifying the accuracy of voter registration lists. The court's ruling affects not only the DOJ's current request but also sets a precedent for future cases involving state voting records and federal oversight.

Background

The parties involved in this case are the United States of America as the plaintiff-appellant and Jocelyn Benson, the Secretary of State of Michigan, along with the State of Michigan as defendants-appellees. The dispute centers around the DOJ's request for Michigan's voter registration records under Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960.

The DOJ's request aimed to ensure compliance with the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), both of which mandate that states maintain accurate voter registration lists. The case reached the Sixth Circuit after a lower court dismissed the DOJ's request, leading to the current appeal.

The Ruling

The Sixth Circuit Court, in its decision filed on August 14, 2026, denied the petition for rehearing en banc. The ruling stated that the issues raised in the petition had been fully considered during the original submission and decision. Judge R. Guy Cole, Jr., along with Judges John B. Nalbandian and Andre B. Mathis, comprised the panel that delivered the ruling.

The court ruled, "The original panel has reviewed the petition for rehearing and concludes that the issues raised in the petition were fully considered upon the original submission and decision."

Judge Nalbandian expressed a desire to grant the petition for rehearing, indicating that the legal issues surrounding the DOJ's access to voter records are significant. However, the majority opinion maintained that the procedural issues could be resolved without en banc review.

Impact

This ruling has far-reaching implications for the DOJ's ability to investigate potential violations of federal voting laws. It suggests that the DOJ may need to clarify its requests for voter records to avoid procedural pitfalls. The court's interpretation of the phrase "come into his possession" in the context of Title III has raised concerns about whether states can withhold internally generated voter records from federal scrutiny.

As Judge Murphy noted in his concurrence, the panel's decision does not prevent the DOJ from sending a new letter that explicitly requests the individual voter records needed to assess compliance with the NVRA and HAVA. This means that while the current petition was denied, the DOJ retains the option to pursue its inquiry with more precise requests.

What's Next

The DOJ has the option to appeal this decision, but it may first choose to send a new request to Michigan's Secretary of State for the specific records it needs. There are also indications that similar cases are pending across the country, suggesting that the legal questions raised in this case will continue to be relevant in future litigation.