A federal appeals court has rejected the Justice Department’s emergency attempt to force California election officials to separate mail-in ballots associated with approximately 20,000 people the federal government suspects may be noncitizens, delivering another courtroom setback to the Trump administration just days before the November 3 midterm elections.
In an October 30 order, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the government’s request by a 2–1 vote. The majority concluded that DOJ had not met the demanding legal standard required to force California to change established election procedures while voting and ballot processing were underway.
The court also upheld the district judge’s assessment that attempting to isolate individual ballots could seriously disrupt the election system and risk preventing eligible citizens from having their votes counted.
The October 30 order, United States v. California, No. 26-7231, leaves the requested emergency restrictions unenforced. It does not, however, establish that every person on DOJ’s disputed list is a citizen or decide every issue in the underlying lawsuit.
After examining both appellate rulings, I find that the most consequential development goes beyond the immediate rejection of the government’s request. The court has now considered whether federal criminal voting law can be used to override established state procedures for verifying eligibility and processing ballots. The majority found that DOJ had not justified that intervention under the circumstances presented.
Why DOJ Lost
The dispute centers on a list developed by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and Homeland Security Investigations using California voter-registration information and other records. Federal officials identified people they considered likely noncitizens and demanded that California authorities verify their citizenship before counting any associated mail-in ballots.
The Justice Department argued that processing these ballots without additional verification could violate 18 U.S.C. § 611, the federal statute generally prohibiting noncitizens from voting in federal elections, subject to specified exceptions. California rejected the demand, questioning the reliability of the federal list and arguing that the proposed intervention conflicted with existing election procedures.
The federal government filed its lawsuit on October 15 and subsequently sought emergency relief requiring officials to segregate the challenged ballots. In its October 30 decision, the Ninth Circuit majority held that DOJ had not shown that federal law clearly required California to abandon its established procedures.
The governing legal standard was particularly demanding because the government requested a mandatory injunction, an order compelling officials to take affirmative actions rather than merely preserving existing conditions. Under the court’s analysis, DOJ needed to demonstrate that the law and facts clearly favored its position. The majority concluded that this showing had not been made. (October 30 order, pp. 7–14.)
Federal Law Dispute
The central legal disagreement concerns the relationship between federal prohibitions on noncitizen voting and the state’s authority to administer elections. The Constitution’s Elections Clause gives states responsibility for setting congressional election procedures while allowing Congress to alter those rules through legislation.
DOJ maintained that Section 611, together with the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, required California to prevent the counting of ballots potentially associated with ineligible voters. The majority rejected the government’s requested application of that theory.
Section 611 criminalizes prohibited voting but does not expressly instruct states to segregate ballots on the basis of federal allegations or authorize DOJ to take control of ongoing election administration. The majority explained that California already maintains a statutory framework governing voter eligibility, registration challenges, signature verification, and ballot processing.
Although federal law can override conflicting state election requirements, the court found that DOJ had not established that Section 611 displaced California’s particular procedures. Importantly, the opinion’s footnote 4 limits its holding. The judges did not conclude that Section 611 could never preempt state election laws. They addressed the government’s requested remedy under the specific facts of this case.
That distinction matters. The ruling restricts the particular emergency intervention DOJ sought; it does not eliminate federal authority to enforce laws against unlawful voting. See the federal voting statute and the appellate order, pp. 8–14.
Ballot Processing Risks
The court’s concerns were not limited to constitutional interpretation. California and Los Angeles County officials maintained that the proposed ballot segregation could require major modifications to existing election technology and operational procedures.
According to the district court findings reviewed by the appellate panel, the county’s existing system lacked a function for setting aside ballots from specifically designated voters in the manner requested by DOJ.
Implementing that capability during an active election could require new procedures, software or system changes, staff training, and additional safeguards. The appellate majority accepted the district court’s assessment that those changes could threaten the overall processing system.
The judges also considered the possibility that significant technological disruption could jeopardize California’s December 11 election certification deadline. This was a prospective operational risk identified in court evidence, not a finding that the election system had already failed.
The government argued that eligible citizens could suffer harm if votes were counted from people prohibited from voting. The majority acknowledged the public interest in election integrity but found the alleged noncitizen-voting risk insufficiently established to outweigh the documented concerns about disruption and potential disenfranchisement.
The court further relied on the Purcell principle, which cautions federal courts against ordering election-rule changes close to Election Day. Here, the concern was especially significant because the election was already underway. (October 30 order, pp. 16–20.)
Voter List Questions
The reliability of DOJ’s underlying voter list played a substantial role in the decision. The district court found significant weaknesses in the methodology used to identify individuals considered likely noncitizens. According to the appellate opinion, the government had not supplied error rates or validation against a reliable benchmark sufficient for the court to assess the accuracy of the classifications.
The opinion also identified uncertainty surrounding the use of LexisNexis data to connect voter records with other identifying information, including Social Security numbers unavailable in California’s public voter file. Those problems matter because a record-matching exercise does not automatically establish someone’s current citizenship or voting eligibility.
A person appearing on a disputed list is not, by that fact alone, proven to have voted illegally. The appellate majority concluded that DOJ had failed to demonstrate clear error in the district court’s assessment of the conflicting evidence. The October 30 ruling therefore leaves the underlying citizenship classifications unresolved rather than independently validating or disproving every entry.
Registration Law Implications
One of the most significant aspects of the ruling concerns the National Voter Registration Act. Federal law generally requires states to complete systematic programs removing ineligible voters from registration rolls at least 90 days before a federal election, subject to statutory exceptions.
The relevant provision is 52 U.S.C. § 20507. DOJ argued that its request concerned ballot segregation rather than voter-registration removal. The majority examined the practical consequences more closely. Under California Elections Code § 2201(a)(8), officials must cancel a registration when they receive legally sufficient proof that the voter is otherwise ineligible.
The majority reasoned that the government’s proposed process could therefore extend beyond holding ballots temporarily. If the classifications were established under the applicable legal standard, the process could result in both ballot cancellation and removal from voter-registration rolls.
I consider this an important distinction because the legal consequences of a procedure depend on what it actually does, not solely on how the government describes it. The majority viewed DOJ’s batch-based challenge to approximately 20,000 voters as raising concerns under the federal prohibition on systematic removals close to Election Day.
The court did not rule that every individualized citizenship challenge is prohibited during that period. The statute and relevant case law distinguish systematic removal programs from certain individualized actions. The judges treated the potential National Voter Registration Act conflict as an additional reason DOJ had not demonstrated the clear legal entitlement required for emergency relief. (October 30 order, pp. 14–16.)
Two Different Rulings
The October 30 decision followed an earlier appellate defeat, but the two rulings rested on different grounds. On October 26, the Ninth Circuit dismissed DOJ’s first emergency appeal because the district court had not been given adequate opportunity to decide the request.
At that stage, the federal government had sought appellate intervention after demanding a district court decision within approximately 15 hours, only three of which were business hours. The first appellate panel determined that it lacked jurisdiction in those circumstances.
The district court subsequently conducted a hearing on October 27 and denied the temporary restraining order on October 28. DOJ filed another appeal and sought emergency relief on October 29. This time, the Ninth Circuit concluded it had jurisdiction to review the matter because the district court’s decision, following an adversarial hearing, effectively denied the government’s requested preliminary relief before the election.
But accepting jurisdiction did not mean granting the government’s request. The judges examined the standards for emergency relief and concluded that DOJ had not satisfied them. That sequence is central to understanding the outcome. The October 26 ruling addressed whether appellate intervention was procedurally available.
The October 30 ruling considered whether the requested injunction was legally justified. For readers following the litigation, Investozora previously covered DOJ’s appeal following the district court’s refusal to order ballot segregation.
Judge’s Dissent
Circuit Judge Patrick Bumatay dissented from the October 30 decision. He argued that federal courts possess established authority to intervene when state actions threaten compliance with federal election law.
In his view, segregating ballots associated with suspected noncitizens would preserve the ability to determine eligibility before potentially unlawful votes became indistinguishable from other ballots. Bumatay maintained that the requested intervention could protect eligible voters against the dilution of their votes.
He also disagreed with the majority’s treatment of the administrative burden, pointing to evidence from another county election official suggesting that some segregation procedures could be implemented using existing election-management systems.
The dissent acknowledged that carrying out the government’s request could be difficult but maintained that operational challenges did not justify refusing all tailored relief. His position did not control the outcome.
The majority instead credited the district court’s assessment of the Los Angeles County system and determined that the government had not shown the district judge committed clear error in evaluating the competing evidence. (October 30 order, majority pp. 17–20; Bumatay dissent pp. 1–17.)
What Happens Next
The October 30 ruling means the Justice Department did not obtain the emergency appellate order it sought before the November 3 election. California officials therefore were not required by that motion to create the proposed ballot-segregation and citizenship-verification process.
The decision does not prevent lawful, individualized eligibility investigations or independently establish the legal status of the approximately 20,000 people identified by federal authorities. Nor does it resolve every claim in the underlying federal lawsuit.
A separate federal court order involving government communications with election workers addresses related but distinct legal issues. Investozora has also reported on the election workers’ ruling. The immediate question is whether DOJ seeks additional emergency intervention and whether any reviewing court changes the legal position before Election Day. Such an outcome remains conditional and should not be presented as decided.
From my review of the two appellate orders, the clearest conclusion is that the government encountered two different legal obstacles in the same dispute: first, a failure to establish appellate jurisdiction on its accelerated timetable, and then a failure to demonstrate entitlement to mandatory emergency relief. The October 30 decision preserves California’s existing procedures for now while leaving the broader litigation and the factual dispute over the federal voter list unresolved.
