“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case?
Advocates challenged a 2025 provision of Ohio law requiring new voters registering at the bureau of motor vehicles to submit proof of citizenship.
What happened in this case?
The Ohio Alliance for Retired Americans and Red, Wine and Blue filed a federal suit to challenge a 2025 state law that requires new voters at bureaus of motor vehicles (BMV) to submit written proof of citizenship when they seek to register to vote. A lower court judge entered a preliminary injunction against the law, stating that it is sufficient for new voters to attest that they are citizens. The case was appealed to the Sixth Circuit, where the state asked that the lower court opinion be stayed so the requirement could be in place for the 2026 elections.
Two Trump judges, John Nalbandian and Whitney Hermandorfer, issued a 2-1 decision granting the stay requested by the state in the September ruling in Red, Wine and Blue v Larose. Biden judge Kevin Ritz dissented. The primary reason for the ruling given by the Trump judges was their view that the plaintiffs did not have standing or the case was moot because the two individual members identified by the plaintiffs were later able to register to vote, although not at a BMV office.
Why did Judge Ritz dissent?
Judge Ritz explained that it was clearly “enough” to show standing that the two group members were denied the opportunity to register at a BMV office without submitting written proof of citizenship because of the 2025 law. The fact that they were later able to register elsewhere does not render the case moot, he wrote, because the case falls under a recognized mootness exception since the controversy was clearly “capable of repetition” yet “evad[ing] review.”
Why is this decision harmful?
Since the voter registration deadline in Ohio is coming up soon in early October, the Trump judges’ decision stopping the preliminary injunction is likely to deprive an unknown number of Ohio residents the right to vote this year. The ruling also sets a bad precedent on requiring written proof of citizenship to vote and on standing issues, especially in the Sixth Circuit, which includes Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. In addition, the ruling illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.