Trump Loses Latest Bid to Block California Ballot Count

The Trump administration has suffered another legal setback in its effort to stop California from counting mail-in ballots linked to more than 20,000 registered voters whose citizenship status the federal government has questioned. A divided federal appeals court on Friday, October 30, rejected the Justice Department’s latest emergency request, allowing California election officials to continue processing the disputed ballots ahead of the November 3, 2026, midterm elections.

The 2-1 decision by a panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit marked the administration’s second defeat at the appeals court level in the same dispute. The Justice Department wanted California officials to separate ballots associated with people on a federal list and withhold them from the count until their citizenship could be verified.

California officials challenged the reliability of the government’s list and argued that the proposed intervention could disrupt election procedures and prevent eligible citizens from having their votes counted. The court’s majority declined to grant the administration the emergency relief it sought, while a dissenting judge argued that temporarily setting aside the ballots would allow officials to investigate the citizenship concerns.

9th Circuit Rejects Trump’s Latest Request Over California Ballots

The latest ruling came after the Justice Department renewed its effort to obtain an order against California following a federal district judge’s rejection of its request for a temporary restraining order.

The appeals court’s October 30 decision addressed the federal government’s request to require California election officials to set aside vote-by-mail ballots associated with more than 20,000 people identified on its list of alleged noncitizens. The administration wanted the ballots held separately until officials could establish whether the individuals were US citizens.

The case was heard by a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit, which is based in San Francisco. The 2-1 outcome went against the federal government’s request for emergency intervention. The majority’s decision left California officials without the additional restrictions sought by the Justice Department.

The ruling does not establish that noncitizens are legally entitled to vote in federal elections. Federal law prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections, and California also requires voters to be US citizens. The dispute instead concerns whether the federal government has sufficiently established that the people on its list are ineligible and whether their ballots can be separated from the count through the emergency procedure it requested.

Why Did the Justice Department Target More Than 20,000 Voters?

The dispute began after federal agencies reviewed California voter registration information and identified a group of people they believed were likely to be noncitizens. The Department of Homeland Security’s US Citizenship and Immigration Services and Homeland Security Investigations were involved in developing the list.

According to the federal government’s court filings, the agencies initially reviewed a much larger group of potential cases before narrowing the information to a list of more than 20,000 people. The administration said these individuals were registered to vote in California and had been sent vote-by-mail ballots for the November 2026 federal election.

The Justice Department argued that the state should take immediate steps to prevent ballots associated with those individuals from being counted before their citizenship status was checked. It maintained that federal law prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections and that election officials should not count ballots cast by people who are ineligible.

However, the federal list did not itself establish that every person named was a noncitizen or had voted. The government sought to have the ballots segregated so that their eligibility could be investigated before tabulation. The distinction is central to the legal dispute: an individual being flagged by a government database is not necessarily proof that the person is ineligible to vote.

What Did the Trump Administration Ask California to Do?

In October, the Justice Department asked California election officials to review the list of more than 20,000 names and verify the citizenship status of the individuals. It also wanted ballots associated with people whose citizenship could not immediately be confirmed to be separated from other mail ballots.

The federal government argued that the ballots should remain set aside until officials completed the verification process. It said the measure would not amount to cancelling votes but would prevent potentially unlawful ballots from being included in the election count before eligibility was established.

California officials rejected the demand. They questioned the accuracy and reliability of the federal data and argued that the requested procedure was inconsistent with state election law. They also warned that separating thousands of ballots shortly before an election could create serious administrative problems and place eligible voters at risk of losing their right to have their votes counted.

The Justice Department filed its lawsuit against California officials on October 15, 2026. The case sought federal intervention in the state’s handling of ballots already distributed to registered voters.

Federal Judge David Carter Warned of Disenfranchisement

Before the latest appeals court ruling, US District Judge David O. Carter rejected the administration’s request for a temporary restraining order. In his October 28 decision, Carter warned that the proposed intervention could cause major disruption to the election and potentially disenfranchise thousands of lawfully registered voters.

The judge questioned the timing and practical consequences of the federal government’s demand. California had already distributed mail ballots, and election officials were processing returned ballots as the November 3 election approached. Introducing a separate verification process for tens of thousands of voters at that stage could require officials to alter established procedures.

The court’s concern was not simply whether citizenship should be verified when there is credible evidence of ineligibility. It was whether the government had provided a sufficient basis for the extraordinary action it wanted and whether the proposed process could be implemented without harming eligible voters.

The federal government appealed after Carter rejected its request. The latest 9th Circuit decision therefore followed a series of unsuccessful attempts to obtain emergency relief from both the district court and the appeals court.

Why the Appeals Court Questioned the Federal Government’s Evidence

A major issue in the case was the reliability of the list used by the Justice Department to identify the more than 20,000 people. The appeals court referred to concerns raised by the district court about how the federal government assembled and validated the information.

The district court found that the government had not provided error rates or demonstrated that its findings had been tested against a reliable benchmark. It also questioned how the data had been enhanced and how information such as names and Social Security numbers had been linked to California’s voter registration records.

The appeals court said these gaps weakened the administration’s argument that the individuals on the list were highly likely to be noncitizens. The judges noted that California officials had challenged the accuracy of the data and that the federal government had not sufficiently addressed those concerns.

The court’s decision did not determine the citizenship status of every person identified by federal agencies. Instead, it examined whether the government had met the demanding legal standard required to obtain an emergency injunction during an ongoing election.

The distinction matters because a list of suspected ineligible voters cannot automatically be treated as proof that every person named is ineligible. Some people who appear in immigration or government databases may have subsequently become naturalised US citizens, while database mismatches can also produce incorrect identifications.

Appeals Court Says Federal Law Does Not Clearly Require California to Segregate the Ballots

The majority’s reasoning also focused on the division of authority between federal and state governments in administering elections. The US Constitution gives states responsibility for establishing the procedures governing congressional elections, subject to the power of Congress to change those rules through legislation.

The Justice Department relied on Section 611 of Title 18 of the US Code, which makes it unlawful for noncitizens to vote in federal elections. The administration argued that this federal prohibition supported its demand that California separate the disputed ballots and verify the citizenship of the people who received them.

However, the majority said Section 611 does not expressly establish a process for handling citizenship challenges to mail-in ballots or authorise the Justice Department to take control of a state’s administration of an ongoing election.

The judges emphasised that California already has a statutory system for determining voter eligibility. That system includes requirements for applicants to attest to their citizenship under penalty of perjury, procedures for checking signatures on returned mail ballots and mechanisms for challenging registrations when sufficient evidence of ineligibility is presented.

The majority concluded that the federal government had not demonstrated that Section 611 overrides California’s existing procedures in the circumstances of this case. It also said that if different procedures for handling mail ballots are considered necessary, the administration should take that proposal to Congress rather than seek to impose them through the courts.

The ruling was limited to the specific emergency relief requested. The judges did not hold that federal law can never override state election procedures or that noncitizens may vote in federal elections. They concluded that the administration had not shown that the law clearly required the extraordinary ballot-segregation order it was seeking.

National Voter Registration Act Also Featured in the Ruling

The appeals court identified another legal concern involving the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). The law generally restricts states from conducting systematic programmes to remove voters from registration lists during the 90 days before a federal election, while allowing certain individual removals supported by sufficient evidence.

The Justice Department argued that its request involved separating ballots rather than removing people from voter registration lists. The majority, however, said the practical consequences could extend beyond temporary ballot segregation.

Under California law, if election officials receive sufficient proof that a registered voter is ineligible, the registration can be cancelled. The appeals court therefore considered the federal government’s request in the context of a process that could potentially lead to the cancellation of registrations across a group of more than 20,000 people.

The judges noted that the NVRA’s restrictions on systematic removals are intended to reduce the risk of eligible voters being wrongly removed shortly before an election, when they may have little opportunity to correct errors and cast their ballots.

The court said the federal government had not clearly demonstrated that its proposed action complied with the relevant legal requirements. Concerns about the accuracy of the list made the potential consequences particularly significant.

Judge Patrick Bumatay Dissents From the Majority

Although two judges rejected the administration’s request, Circuit Judge Patrick Bumatay disagreed. In his dissent, Bumatay argued that California should have been required to separate the disputed ballots while the government and state officials verified the citizenship of the people associated with them.

He maintained that the proposed measure would not automatically cancel the ballots. Instead, it would temporarily keep them apart from other votes until officials could establish whether the individuals were eligible to participate in federal elections.

Bumatay argued that federal law prohibits noncitizens from voting and that the administration was seeking to enforce that prohibition rather than discard votes without investigation. He wrote that California had already decided that noncitizens could not vote in its elections and that the federal government was attempting to safeguard that rule.

The disagreement reflects two competing concerns in the case. The federal government argued that ballots potentially cast by ineligible voters should be checked before they are counted. California and the majority of the appeals court focused on the risk that an unverified list and a new procedure introduced during an election could wrongly affect eligible voters and disrupt ballot processing.

The 2-1 ruling means the administration did not obtain the emergency order it wanted. Bumatay’s dissent, however, shows that the judges differed over how to balance election integrity concerns against the risks of changing ballot procedures close to Election Day.

Why Noncitizen Voting Became a Major Issue in the Case

Noncitizen voting in federal elections is prohibited under US law. The issue has become a prominent part of the Trump administration’s election-related actions, with federal agencies seeking to identify people they believe may be registered despite not holding US citizenship.

However, available evidence indicates that noncitizen voting is exceedingly rare. Research and election reviews have generally found isolated cases rather than evidence of widespread participation by noncitizens in federal elections.

California has said it maintains safeguards intended to prevent people who are not US citizens from registering or voting in state and federal elections. These include citizenship declarations during registration and procedures that allow election officials to investigate credible challenges to voter eligibility.

The administration’s position is that federal agencies should be able to identify suspected noncitizens and require states to verify their eligibility. California’s position is that the government must provide reliable evidence and follow legally established procedures rather than require the mass segregation of ballots based on disputed data.

Voting Rights organisations have also raised concerns about the use of government databases to identify suspected noncitizens. They argue that outdated records, incomplete information and mismatches between databases could incorrectly flag naturalised citizens or other eligible voters.

The dispute therefore involves more than the question of whether noncitizens can vote. It also raises questions about the accuracy of voter eligibility checks, the protection of citizens’ voting rights and the division of responsibility between federal and state authorities.

How Many of the 20,000 People Actually Cast Ballots?

An important unanswered question is how many people on the federal government’s list actually returned their mail-in ballots. The Justice Department has not disclosed how many of the more than 20,000 individuals identified as possible noncitizens had submitted ballots in the election.

The distinction is important because being registered and receiving a ballot does not establish that an individual voted. The list covered people whom the federal government believed were registered and had been sent mail ballots, but it did not establish that every person had returned one.

It also did not establish that every person identified was a noncitizen. The administration described the individuals as likely noncitizens, while California questioned the underlying data and the process used to generate the list.

The appeals court’s decision highlighted the lack of sufficient validation behind the federal government’s claims. Without reliable information about the accuracy of the list and the number of people who actually voted, the court was unwilling to order a sweeping change to ballot processing shortly before the election.

Could the Trump Administration Take the Case to the Supreme Court?

The legal dispute could continue beyond the 9th Circuit. The October 30 decision came only days before the November 3 midterm elections, leaving limited time for the administration to seek further judicial intervention before voting concludes.

Reuters reported that the ruling could set up a possible dispute before the US Supreme Court. The Justice Department has continued to pursue its legal challenge, arguing that California should not count ballots associated with people whose citizenship has not been verified.

Any further emergency request would have to address the legal and evidentiary problems identified by the appeals court. These include the reliability of the federal list, the statutory authority for requiring ballot segregation and the potential disruption to an election already underway.

The October 30 ruling does not finally resolve every question raised by the broader lawsuit. It rejects the administration’s request for an emergency injunction pending appeal, meaning California is not required to implement the specific ballot-segregation process sought by the federal government under that order.

What the Ruling Means for California’s November 3 Midterm Election

For California election officials, the immediate consequence is that they can continue processing mail ballots under the state’s existing election procedures without carrying out the additional segregation process demanded by the Justice Department.

The appeals court placed significant weight on the practical difficulties of introducing a new system at such a late stage. The district court had heard evidence that Los Angeles County’s election management system did not have an existing function for setting aside ballots belonging to designated voters on a list of this size.

Implementing the federal government’s demand would require changes to systems and procedures that had already been tested for the election. Officials would also need to develop a new process and train staff to use it.

The district court warned that these changes could threaten the county’s ability to manage the election and meet its certification deadline. The appeals court agreed that the risk of disrupting the broader tabulation process was a serious concern.

The majority also relied on the principle established in Purcell v. Gonzalez, under which courts are generally cautious about changing election rules close to Election Day. The principle is intended to prevent last-minute judicial interventions from creating confusion among voters and election officials.

With mail voting already underway and the November 3 election approaching, the court concluded that the requested intervention could cause more harm than the government had demonstrated it would prevent.

What Happens Next in the California Noncitizen Voting Case?

The October 30 decision marks another setback for the Trump administration’s attempt to make California isolate ballots linked to the disputed federal list before the midterm elections. The ruling allows existing state procedures to remain in place while the broader legal dispute continues.

The case has raised questions about how federal agencies can use voter registration data, what evidence is necessary to challenge an individual’s eligibility and how far the federal government can go in directing states to change election procedures.

For now, the central issue remains unresolved: whether the people identified by federal agencies are actually noncitizens and whether any of them cast ballots in the November 2026 election. The Justice Department has not provided a public figure for how many people on its list returned ballots.

The appeals court did not rule that noncitizens can vote, nor did it prevent authorities from investigating credible evidence of unlawful voting. It found that the federal government had not met the legal standard for the sweeping emergency order it requested, particularly given the uncertainty surrounding its data and the risks to eligible voters.

With the November 3 midterms approaching, California election officials can continue counting mail ballots under existing state rules. Any further challenge by the Trump administration will have to confront the legal and practical concerns outlined by the 9th Circuit in its divided October 30 decision.