Kavanaugh, who was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Donald Trump, denied the emergency application without referring the matter to all nine justices.
His short order did not provide an explanation for the decision.
As the justice assigned to emergency matters arising from the Sixth Circuit, which covers Michigan, Kavanaugh had the authority to handle the application himself. He also could have referred the matter to the full Supreme Court for consideration.
At the center of the fight is a proposed amendment that would require voters to provide proof of U.S. citizenship in Michigan elections.
Noncitizen voting is already prohibited under existing law. Supporters of the amendment, however, want an additional verification mechanism written into Michigan’s constitution.
Backers say they delivered roughly 709,000 petition signatures in March in their effort to put the question directly before Michigan voters.
According to supporters, only 446,198 valid signatures were required to qualify.
Despite the enormous number of signatures collected, the proposal hit a roadblock when the Michigan Board of State Canvassers became deadlocked over whether enough of those signatures were valid.
Without certification from the board, the amendment could not advance to the November ballot.
The group behind the measure subsequently sought help from the Michigan Supreme Court. Its attorneys argued that the state’s actions were preventing hundreds of thousands of petition signers from having their proposal presented to voters.
With the ballot deadline rapidly approaching and no relief arriving from Michigan’s highest court, supporters made an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Their argument centered on constitutional protections involving due process and equal protection.
The applicants maintained that immediate action was necessary because once Michigan completed its ballot preparations, obtaining meaningful relief would become substantially more difficult.
They also argued that the canvassing board’s actions effectively disenfranchised more than 700,000 residents who signed petitions seeking a statewide vote on the amendment.
Michigan officials strongly opposed federal intervention.
Attorneys representing Democratic Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson and other state officials argued that the applicants were attempting to pull the U.S. Supreme Court into a state-level administrative and judicial dispute before Michigan’s own process had run its course.
The state characterized the emergency request as “highly unusual.”
Michigan’s filing urged the Supreme Court to stay out of the dispute while state courts considered the underlying issues.
“The Court should decline to put its thumb on the scale in this manner, particularly in the case of a state administrative proceeding where a state court can provide more fulsome and comprehensive review,” Michigan argued.
Kavanaugh ultimately sided against granting emergency relief, meaning supporters did not receive the immediate Supreme Court order they sought to place the amendment on the November 3 ballot.
The controversy comes amid a broader national battle over election safeguards, voter identification and citizenship verification.
Federal law already bars noncitizens from voting in federal elections, and Michigan law prohibits noncitizens from voting in state elections as well.
Michigan election officials have maintained that they have not uncovered evidence showing noncitizen voting is occurring on a widespread scale.
However, the issue received renewed attention in August when Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel announced criminal charges against five noncitizens accused of illegally voting in the November 2024 general election.
A U.S. citizen was also charged in connection with allegedly registering a noncitizen spouse to vote.
Those cases demonstrated that alleged violations can occur, even as officials dispute claims that noncitizen voting represents a widespread problem in Michigan.
For supporters of the constitutional amendment, the issue is ultimately about prevention and verification rather than simply relying on existing prohibitions.
Kavanaugh’s decision, importantly, does not amount to a Supreme Court ruling that states are constitutionally barred from requiring documentary evidence of citizenship.
Nor did the justice decide the larger policy question surrounding proof-of-citizenship requirements.
Instead, the emergency fight concerned whether the Supreme Court should step into Michigan’s ballot-certification battle at the eleventh hour and order officials to put this particular amendment before voters.
For the roughly 709,000 people supporters say signed the petition, however, that procedural distinction may offer little comfort.
Absent another successful legal development, Michigan voters will not get the opportunity this November to decide whether proof of U.S. citizenship should become an explicit constitutional requirement for voting in the state.
