A federal judge in Florida found the statute regarding voting by an alien to be unconstitutional.

Posted by The NPR Politics Podcast, Oct 26, 2026Checked Nov 2, 2026

Polygraph verdictTrue

Sources: 4 support2 context
Said: 1 time·
Confidence: 92%

The NPR Politics PodcastOct 26, 2026

A federal judge in Florida, Judge David Leibowitz of the Southern District of Florida, ruled on October 1, 2026 that 18 U.S.C. § 611, the federal law criminalizing noncitizen voting, is unconstitutional. The ruling is narrow: it applies only as-applied to defendant Chelsea Cox and does not bind other courts, which the claim's wording does not dispute.

What was said

… The majority of the people who are charged are facing only a misdemeanor charge, a misdemeanor charge of voting by an alien, and what's very important to note about this charge is a federal judge in Florida this month found that statute to be unconstitutional. Oh, so there are questions as to whether the main charge that the Justice Department is bringing in these non-citizen voting cases will even i mean, the thing that I'm struck by is the legal permanent resident part of this. …

The NPR Politics Podcast · Oct 26, 2026· from the transcriptPost →

What we found

Supports. Reuters reports that U.S. District Judge David Leibowitz in Miami dismissed the federal case against Chelsea Cox, finding the statute criminalizing noncitizen voting unconstitutional.[1]

Supports. Bloomberg Law reports that Leibowitz ruled the 40-year-old statute unconstitutional in a case of first impression, holding that Congress lacks power to set federal voter qualifications.[2]

Supports. Jurist and Cato both report the ruling on the 18 U.S.C. § 611 'Voting By Aliens' statute, with Cato noting it was an as-applied ruling that did not resolve a facial challenge.[3][4]

Context. The ruling is narrow and non-binding on other judges, and the Justice Department filed a notice of appeal, but none of this contradicts the claim that the judge found the statute unconstitutional.[5][6]

Context. The post itself says 'this month' about the ruling, which matches the October 1, 2026 date in the sources, so the claim's omission of that phrase is a faithful paraphrase.[1]