Adoptee Rights Law Center

Legal representation and advocacy for adult adopted people

Intercountry Adoptees Are Being Charged With Illegal Voting. What You Need to Know.

First published on • Last updated on

At least two foreign-born adoptees are facing federal criminal charges for alleged unlawful voting. It’s a big deal for the intercountry adoptee community. Here’s what we know so far.

TL;DR

  • At least two adoptees born abroad face federal charges in New York and North Carolina for allegedly voting as noncitizens. These are accusations, not findings.
  • Some intercountry adoptees are not U.S. citizens and don’t know it, especially those born on or before February 27, 1983. Others are citizens but still show up as green card holders in federal government databases that are now used to check voter rolls.
  • A legal exception can protect intercountry adoptees who voted believing they were citizens. All three of the law’s conditions must be met, including that each adoptive parent must be a U.S. citizen.
  • If you’re unsure of your status, confirm it before you vote or register, get proof (a U.S. passport or Certificate of Citizenship), and talk to a lawyer before you file anything with immigration officials or answer any agents’ questions.

The Two Cases

Marva Cook is a 66-year-old German-born adoptee from Syracuse, New York. Robert Corbett is a 69-year-old Canadian-born adoptee in North Carolina. Each is accused of voting in federal elections as a noncitizen. Both are reported to hold green cards. Both are reported to have learned later in life that the government considers them noncitizens. Mr. Corbett also did not learn he was adopted until he was 51.

What follows applies primarily to intercountry adoptees and others who were born abroad and adopted by U.S. citizen parents, whether adopted in the U.S. or in their country of origin.

As a reminder, the charges against Ms. Cook and Mr. Corbett are accusations, not fact. The allegations, however, and the new and aggressive investigations of alleged noncitizen voting are worth understanding because of how they affect intercountry adoptees in the United States.

What has been reported

Marva Cook, Syracuse, New York. Central Current, based in Syracuse, reports that Ms. Cook was born in Germany, came to the United States at age two, and was adopted. According to the criminal complaint, her adoptive parents filed an immigrant visa application in 1962. In 2020 she changed her legal name and applied for an updated green card. Agents from Homeland Security Investigations interviewed her on October 5, 2026; the charging documents say she told them she had discovered a German birth certificate, rather than U.S. citizenship, while searching for her biological mother.

She is charged with “voting by an alien,” a federal misdemeanor, based on a vote in the 2022 general election. She surrendered to ICE on October 21, 2026, appeared in federal court the same afternoon, and was released while the case proceeds. Her attorney is Paul Tuck.

Robert Corbett, North Carolina. The Justice Department’s October 16, 2026, announcement lists Mr. Corbett, 69, as a Canadian national and lawful permanent resident charged in the Eastern District of North Carolina with one count of falsely claiming citizenship to vote and one count of voting by an alien. DOJ says he registered in 1998 and voted in six elections between 1998 and 2024. He told reporters outside the Raleigh courthouse that he was raised in the United States and did not learn he was adopted until he was 51, in approximately 2008. He has said he believed he was a U.S. citizen.

The Wider Context. DOJ announced charges against 16 people on October 16 and against 28 people in California on October 19, with the November 3 midterms about two weeks away. The CBC reports that federal prosecutors have charged dozens of noncitizens since late last year, many of them longtime permanent residents, and that several say they did not know they were breaking the law or even that they were registered.

Three Ways Adopted People End Up Being Snared in Voting Issues

The following scenarios are not the only paths that could ensnare an intercountry adopted person into an illegal voting case. They are, though, the issues I see most often with clients who may or may not be U.S. citizens.

1. You are not a citizen, but no one told you that (or worse, told you that you were a U.S. citizen when you were not). Current law, the Child Citizenship Act of 2000, does not cover intercountry adoptees who were already 18 years of age on February 27, 2001—meaning those born on or before February 27, 1983. In addition, intercountry adoptees admitted on IR-4 visas and whose adoptions were never finalized in a U.S. court can also become adults without having secured U.S. citizenship. A green card, a Social Security number, or a driver’s license can all be issued to a noncitizen, so nothing in a person’s day-to-day life reveals an immigration issue. Ms. Cook and Mr. Corbett were both born decades before February 28, 1983; the Child Citizenship Act does not cover either of them. Whether Ms. Cook or Mr. Corbett have another route to citizenship depends on facts that are not yet public.

2. You are a citizen, but U.S. government records do not say that. Many adoptees acquired citizenship automatically under the Child Citizenship Act and never received a Certificate of Citizenship, which is proof of that citizenship. USCIS, for example, did not issue certificates automatically or retroactively to those who entered the United States before January 1, 2004. USCIS also does not mail a Certificate of Citizenship for IR-4 and IH-4 admissions at all, unlike IR-3 and IH-3 admissions. Parents, or the adopted person as an adult, must apply for one. The State Department further notes that USCIS systems are not updated with a child’s citizenship status unless the family obtains a Certificate of Citizenship, and that some agencies rely on those incomplete systems. While voting is lawful for this population, limited records in federal databases may falsely say otherwise.

3. You registered because someone told you that you could register, or you did so by mistake. Registration errors are real. A federal judge in Florida in August acquitted a Canadian woman accused of illegal voting after she argued an election official had wrongly told her permanent residents could vote. A Reuters investigation also found that software glitches and clerical errors across a dozen states could have added more than 30,000 self-declared noncitizens to voter rolls since 2000, according to the same CBC report.

A Safe Harbor for Adoptees

Congress has been aware of this issue and addressed it more than 25 years ago when it passed the Child Citizenship Act of 2000. Part of the CCA included an exception to criminal and immigration consequences of unlawful voting and false claims to citizenship.

The exception covers three consequences:

  1. The federal crime of voting as a noncitizen.
  2. The related crime of falsely claiming citizenship to vote.
  3. The immigration consequences of both, including deportation and a finding that you lack the good moral character needed to naturalize.

As reported, Ms. Cook is charged with the first of these, and Mr. Corbett’s charges appear to involve the first two.

The exception, however, applies only when all three of these conditions are met:

  1. Each natural parent, or in the case of an adopted person each adoptive parent, is or was a U.S. citizen, whether by birth or naturalization.
  2. The person permanently resided in the United States before turning 16.
  3. The person reasonably believed at the time that he or she was a citizen.

Even when those conditions appear to apply, the exception has limits:

  • All three conditions required. An adoptee with a noncitizen adoptive parent does not qualify for the exception, nor does someone who arrived in the U.S. at age 17.
  • “Reasonably believed” turns on facts. What a person was told, and by whom, will be scrutinized. In a 2025 policy update, USCIS said it will issue a Notice to Appear (in removal proceedings) to naturalization applicants who falsely claimed citizenship or voted unlawfully, unless the exception applies. Its Policy Manual lets officers take sworn statements and issue requests for evidence, and it requires evidence of the applicant’s parents’ citizenship to assess the exception. In my naturalization cases, intercountry adoptee clients are now being asked for substantial evidence that they reasonably believed they were citizens when they registered to vote and voted.
  • The exception does not make you a citizen. The exception shields a person from the consequences of voting. It does not fix a person’s underlying non-citizen status.

Whether the exception will help Ms. Cook or Mr. Corbett depends on facts that are not yet publicly available, including details about their adoptive parents and whether each of them were U.S. citizens.

Understanding the Prosecutions in Context

These prosecutions sit inside a larger state and federal effort to check voter rolls against “citizenship” databases, databases that are often incomplete and inaccurate—especially for intercountry adopted people. Three recent developments matter most: the government’s current and expanded use of the federal SAVE database, the criminal referrals that follow from database flags, and proposed laws that would require even more federal data matching.

One immediate issue is how SAVE (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements), a federal database built to verify immigration status, is now being used to help states remove people from voter rolls. After issuance of an executive order in March 2025, Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration started to modify the SAVE database to include:

  • U.S.-born citizens;
  • searches by Social Security number; and
  • bulk state searches.

Soon after, states began bulk running their voter rolls through SAVE, and litigation followed. In League of Women Voters v. DHS, a federal district court held in June that the changes violated the Privacy Act, the Social Security Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The judge also found that states were removing citizens from voter rolls based on inaccurate information.

On September 25, 2026, the Supreme Court paused that ruling while the appeal proceeds in the D.C. Circuit, so states can keep using the modified system, even after the Supreme Court acknowledged injury to members of the plaintiff group. To explain why the plaintiffs could sue, the Court pointed to a Louisiana member who is a naturalized citizen: Social Security records do not show her naturalization, so she would now have to prove her citizenship in order to vote.

False flags and accusations are not fiction—they are real. The Bipartisan Policy Center, for example, reports that Travis County, Texas, found that 25 percent of the voters USCIS flagged as potential noncitizens had already provided proof of citizenship when they registered. A federal judge in Oakland found on October 21 that the government’s noncitizen-voting investigations in nine states rely on government data that is full of errors. She ordered DHS to stop election-related home visits and field interviews of people it believes are likely U.S. citizens through Election Day, but paused her order until October 23 at 5 p.m. Eastern so the administration could appeal.

The risk of false flags is built into federal records. The State Department notes that USCIS systems are not updated with a child’s citizenship unless the family obtains a Certificate of Citizenship, so a derivative citizen, such as an intercountry adoptee who never obtained a certificate, can look like and be listed as a permanent resident (green card holder) and nothing else.

Adoptees who derived citizenship automatically but have no proof of it face the same gap: neither USCIS nor Social Security records show it unless they obtained a Certificate of Citizenship and took it to Social Security. Federal law bars systematic removals from voter rolls in the 90 days before a federal election, but, as the Supreme Court majority noted, states can still conduct individualized inquiries.

Here is what we know about Ms. Cook and Mr. Corbett—and what we don’t, at least so far. In North Carolina, the State Board of Elections ran the state’s voter rolls through SAVE in April and shared the results with the FBI. State and federal officials have said the ten people indicted there, a group that includes Mr. Corbett, were identified by cross-checking those rolls against SAVE. Prosecutors did not explain at the hearing how each defendant was identified, so I cannot say what flagged Mr. Corbett specifically. I have also seen nothing yet on how Ms. Cook came to the government’s attention. My concern, though, is this: if prosecutions like these are what enforcement looks like at this point, then laws that require more matching against admittedly incomplete records will continue to produce more notices, more removals from voter rolls, and more criminal referrals. It’s a mess that’s getting worse, and more dangerous.

Finally, two proposals would require more federal data searches and matching. The SAVE America Act, which passed the House in February 2026 but has stalled in the Senate, would:

  1. require states to submit their voter lists to the DHS SAVE system within 30 days of enactment and
  2. remove registrants once the state receives documentation or verified information that they are not citizens.

A Michigan constitutional amendment that failed to qualify for the 2026 ballot would have required its Secretary of State to verify citizenship using data from government sources, including the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration, with removal from the rolls after notice and a 45-day response period.

What You Can Do Now

First, this is general information and not legal advice about any specific situation, including yours. It is also intended solely for intercountry adopted people, not for the general public or for people who have a different immigration status or issue.

If you are a U.S. citizen, you have the right to vote—and you should vote. Nothing changes that. If you are not sure, however, settle that question before you register to vote or vote again.

  1. Confirm your status. If you are not sure, don’t guess. Were you adopted by a U.S. citizen parent before turning 18? Was the adoption finalized in the United States or abroad? Were you born on or before February 27, 1983? Do you have a U.S. passport, a Certificate of Naturalization, or a Certificate of Citizenship? Even if you only have a copy of one of these, it would demonstrate you are a U.S. citizen, though a copy cannot be used for official government functions. Adoptees United FAQ walks through a lot of these issues. Also keep in mind that a U.S. passport or a Certificate of Citizenship is solid proof of citizenship. A green card, a Social Security card, a driver’s license, or any kind of voting history is not. If you have ever registered or voted and are not certain you are a citizen, see an attorney first.
  2. Get your citizenship documents. If you don’t have either one and you qualify, get a U.S. passport and file Form N-600 to secure a Certificate of Citizenship. There is currently no filing fee for adult intercountry adoptees for the N-600, and the Adoptees United Citizenship Clinic provides pro bono representation (though it is near capacity for new cases). Because current USCIS processing of N-600 cases can be ridiculously slow for such an important document, do this sooner than later. And if you don’t have a U.S. passport, get one while you are waiting for your certificate.
  3. Unsure? Talk to a lawyer first. Voting while a noncitizen can be a federal crime and can make a permanent resident deportable. While the safe harbor I described above is narrow, it was intended for adoptees and may apply to most intercountry adoptees whose parents are each a U.S. citizen. But if you have concerns or questions about its application or your status, a lawyer should confirm these issues with you.
  4. If you voted in the past and found out later you were not a U.S. citizen, get advice before you do anything. Talk to an immigration attorney before filing any immigration applications or seeking to naturalize. The naturalization application specifically asks about voting history. Separately, if investigators contact you, consider retaining a criminal defense lawyer who also understands immigration law.
  5. If immigration or federal agents contact you, it is best not to answer their questions. Tell them you want to speak with a lawyer. In Ms. Cook’s case, the charging documents rely in part on what she said in an October 5 interview with agents. One thing though: whatever you do, do not lie. It only makes things worse.
  6. Get help or advice. Adoptees United’s Citizenship Clinic provides free legal advice specifically to intercountry adoptees. It has also announced a forum on Tuesday, October 27, 2026, to discuss this issue. Register for that forum here.

One more thing. There’s a legislative fix for noncitizen intercountry adoptees who currently lack U.S. citizenship: the Protect Adoptees and American Families Act (the PAAF Act, H.R. 5492 and S. 2923). It would close the 1983 age-based gap that left older intercountry adoptees without citizenship—unless they naturalized. If we can get that enacted, it would resolve the citizenship status problem, though adoptees would still need to document their citizenship.

Sources and Additional Information

About Gregory D. Luce

I am a Minnesota lawyer, born and adopted in the District of Columbia, and the founder of Adoptee Rights Law Center PLLC. I've been practicing law in Minnesota state and federal courts since 1993, and have been the executive director of Adoptees United Inc. since 2021. I also have a sense of humor.

Get Involved with Adoptees United Inc.

Logo of Adoptees United Inc.Did you find this post interesting? Then get involved nationally with Adoptees United Inc., a national tax-exempt non-profit organization dedicated to securing equality for all adult adopted people in the US. Find out more here, and join me and others in working for equality.

Did I Miss Something?

I work hard to get the laws and facts straight in every state---and to keep them regularly updated. If you see something that's not quite right or doesn't fit your experience, let me know with either a quick comment or an email.