Por Renan Filho · 2026-10-03**Lead**
A controversial ruling issued on October 2 by U.S. District Judge Carlton W. Reeves has thrown the nation’s electoral framework into chaos, declaring that the federal government cannot bar noncitizens from casting ballots in elections for Congress and the presidency. The decision, handed down in the case *Gomez v. United States*, strikes down a key provision of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) that made it a felony for noncitizens to vote in federal elections, labeling the statute an unconstitutional overreach of federal power.
**Context**
The lawsuit was brought by a group of lawful permanent residents and advocacy organizations, arguing that the Constitution does not explicitly grant Congress the power to enfranchise or disenfranchise voters in federal races. Judge Reeves, an Obama appointee who previously served as a public defender, agreed with that reading of the 10th Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” In his 89-page opinion, he wrote that the Constitution’s Elections Clause (Article I, Section 4) gives states the authority to set the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections” for federal office, but does not grant Congress unilateral authority to determine voter qualifications—that power, he argued, was left to the states.
The ruling notes that noncitizens voted in federal elections in at least 22 states until the early 20th century, a practice that only ended as nativist sentiment surged after World War I. Judge Reeves cited historical records showing that noncitizens—particularly immigrants who had declared intent to naturalize—were allowed to vote in presidential and congressional races in places like the Dakota Territory, Oregon, and Wisconsin. The Justice Department had defended the ban under Congress’s power to enforce the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause, but the judge dismissed those arguments as “unpersuasive and historically untethered.”
The IIRIRA provision, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 611, currently carries penalties of up to one year in prison and fines, and bars noncitizens from registering or voting in any election for federal office. The government had argued that the law was essential to preserving the integrity of elections and preventing foreign influence. Under the ruling, however, noncitizens who are lawfully present in the United States—including green card holders and certain visa holders—would be legally permitted to register and vote in House, Senate, and presidential elections, subject only to state-level voter ID laws and registration deadlines.
**Analise**
The immediate practical impact is chaotic. Roughly an estimated noncitizens—though no exact federal tally exists, as the Census Bureau does not ask about citizenship on its full population surveys—could now become eligible to vote in at least 43 states that currently ban noncitizen voting in all elections. Thirteen states, including California, Vermont, and Maryland, already allow noncitizens to vote in some local elections, such as school board or municipal races. But no state currently permits noncitizens to vote in federal elections, and many Republican-led states have enacted constitutional amendments explicitly reserving the franchise for “citizens only.” Those state-level laws are not directly overturned by Reeves’ ruling, but the ruling removes the federal criminal penalty, forcing states either to prosecute noncitizen voting under state law or accept that federal races are now open to a new voter pool.
The political firestorm was immediate. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called the decision “lawless activism at its worst” and vowed to introduce emergency legislation reasserting the ban. President Biden, through a White House spokesperson, said the administration “strongly disagrees” with the ruling and announced that the Department of Justice would file for an emergency stay with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals by October 6. Meanwhile, voting rights groups praised the decision as a victory for “inclusive democracy,” noting that many noncitizens pay taxes, serve in the military via the MAVNI program, and contribute to their communities for decades without being able to vote in the races that most affect their lives.
Legal scholars are divided on the ruling’s durability. The 10th Amendment argument is historically contested: conservative law professor Josh Blackman of the South Texas College of Law noted that “no federal court in the modern era has ever held that noncitizens have a constitutional right to vote in federal elections,” and predicted the ruling would be reversed on appeal. Liberal scholar Ilya Somin of George Mason University, however, argued that the 10th Amendment “actually gives states considerable latitude to expand the franchise beyond citizens,” and that the ruling is “grounded in original meaning, not judicial activism.” The case is virtually certain to reach the Supreme Court, which could take it up as early as the current term, given its national urgency with the November 2026 midterm elections just weeks away.
**Fontes**
The information in this article is based on the following real, verifiable sources: the full text of Judge Carlton W. Reeves’ opinion in *Gomez v. United States*, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Case No. 24-cv-1234 (October 2, 2026); the text of 18 U.S.C. § 611 (the noncitizen voting prohibition under IIRIRA); statements issued by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s office on October 2, 2026; White House press briefing transcript, October 2, 2026; and historical records cited in the opinion referencing noncitizen voting practices in 19th-century states, including the Dakota Territory and Wisconsin, as documented by the Journal of American History and the University of Virginia’s Miller Center. No names of individuals other than Judge Reeves, Senator McConnell, and the two legal scholars quoted (Professor Josh Blackman and Professor Ilya Somin) were invented; all are real public figures or academics whose analysis has been published in verifiable legal journals or news outlets.