6th Circuit Court of Appeals

The Trump administration is requesting the Supreme Court to approve its expanded ICE detention policy, which requires mandatory detention for immigrants living in the U.S. for years without bond hearings. Federal district courts have largely rejected the policy as a violation of due process, but the administration argues for Supreme Court intervention due to conflicting appellate rulings.

A federal appeals court ruled the Department of Justice cannot access sensitive Michigan voter data, blocking President Trump's effort to obtain voter information from 30 states. The 2-1 decision cited conflicts between the Civil Rights Act and other federal laws like the National Voter Registration Act. The ruling centers on whether voter rolls are 'documents in possession' of election officials under the Civil Rights Act.

A federal appeals court ruled that the Department of Justice cannot access sensitive Michigan voter data, blocking President Trump’s push to obtain voter rolls for identifying noncitizen voters. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals found that requiring Michigan to share the data would conflict with federal laws like the National Voter Registration Act and Help America Vote Act. The decision sets up a potential Supreme Court battle over state control of voter information.

A federal appeals court ruled that Michigan is not required to provide sensitive voter data to the Trump administration. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals decision stated Title III of the 1960 Civil Rights Act does not authorize the Justice Department to compel the state to release unredacted information.

A federal appeals court ruled the Department of Justice cannot access sensitive Michigan voter data, blocking President Trump's effort to obtain voter information. The 2-1 decision in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals highlighted potential conflicts between the Civil Rights Act and other federal voter registration laws. The ruling sets up a possible Supreme Court battle over state control of voter rolls ahead of the November midterm elections.

A federal appeals court ruled that the Department of Justice cannot access sensitive Michigan voter data under the 1960 Civil Rights Act, blocking a Trump administration effort to obtain voter information from 30 states. The 2-1 decision in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals cited potential conflicts with the National Voter Registration Act and Help America Vote Act, which govern voter roll maintenance.

A federal appeals court ruled that the Department of Justice cannot access sensitive voter data from Michigan, blocking President Trump's effort to obtain voter rolls for a noncitizen voter investigation. The 2-1 decision in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals could lead to a Supreme Court battle, as the court found the Civil Rights Act does not require states to provide such data, citing conflicts with other federal election laws.

A federal appeals court blocked the Department of Justice from accessing sensitive Michigan voter data, a move seen as a setback for President Donald Trump's efforts to obtain voter information from 30 states. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that Michigan's voter registration database is not subject to the Civil Rights Act's provisions, citing potential conflicts with other federal laws like the National Voter Registration Act and Help America Vote Act. The decision could lead to a Supreme Court battle over state voter rolls ahead of the November midterm elections.

The Trump administration plans to appeal a federal judge's dismissal of human smuggling charges against Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was wrongfully deported to El Salvador in 2025 and later returned to the U.S. The judge ruled the charges were retaliatory after Abrego challenged his deportation, calling the prosecution 'vindictive and selective.' Abrego faces a separate deportation case in Maryland.

The Supreme Court ruled that a Michigan county's tax sale price determines 'just compensation' for a homeowner, sending the case back to the 6th Circuit to assess procedural fairness. Michael Pung, executor of his nephew's estate, disputed the county's refusal to pay surplus proceeds based on a later higher sale price. The court emphasized historical precedent allowing tax-driven property seizures with surplus returns.