A federal appeals court on Friday denied a second request by the Trump administration to block 20,000 California ballots from being counted, ruling that the administration had failed to demonstrate that such an extraordinary measure was legally justified during an ongoing election.
The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 2-1 decision, with judges appointed by both former President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden siding against the Department of Justice. The panel found that federal law does not permit the administration to override California’s established election procedures, emphasizing that Congress—not the courts—holds the authority to alter state voting rules.
The ruling marks the latest in a series of legal setbacks for the Trump administration’s efforts to challenge voter eligibility in California ahead of Tuesday’s midterm elections. Millions of ballots have already been cast, and elections officials have stated that processed votes are anonymized, making it impossible to segregate or challenge individual ballots without risking disenfranchisement.
Judges Cite Constitutional Limits on Federal Interference
The majority opinion, authored by Judge Mark J. Bennett (Trump appointee) and Judge Gabriel P. Sanchez (Biden appointee), rejected the DOJ’s argument that federal statutes permitted the administration to intervene. The judges wrote that allowing such a move would "override the plain and manifest dictates of the Constitution itself," as the Elections Clause grants states and Congress—not the executive branch—the power to regulate elections.
"Because Congress has not exercised the specific power granted to it under the Elections Clause to override California’s established laws for challenging ballots or removing ineligible voters, the State Legislature’s statutory scheme remains the only method to do so," the majority wrote.
The court also questioned the reliability of the administration’s list of purported noncitizens, noting that a lower court had previously found the data suspect. Federal law prohibits sweeping changes to voter rolls within 90 days of an election, a provision intended to prevent last-minute disruptions.
Dissenting Opinion Argues for Voter Integrity
Judge Patrick J. Bumatay (Trump appointee), the lone dissenter, argued that the majority had erred by denying the DOJ’s request to ensure only citizens vote. He contended that the administration’s concerns about noncitizen voting warranted immediate action, even during an election.
Federal Judge Orders DOJ to Release Noncitizen Voter List
In a separate but related development, Chief Judge James E. Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the Justice Department on Friday to turn over its list of 20,000 suspected noncitizen voters to two outside groups: the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA) and the UCLA Voting Rights Project. The order requires the DOJ to comply by 5 p.m. Friday.
The groups, which sued the Department of Homeland Security in early October, sought access to the list to assess its accuracy and potential impact on eligible voters. California officials have long maintained that the list is highly unreliable, with state Attorney General Xavier Becerra (a Democratic gubernatorial candidate) previously calling it flawed.
DOJ Escalates Pressure with Criminal Subpoenas
The Trump administration has intensified its tactics in recent days, with the DOJ issuing federal grand jury subpoenas to at least four California election workers in Los Angeles and Orange counties. The subpoenas demand records related to efforts to prevent noncitizens from voting, as well as any evidence suggesting noncitizens had cast ballots.
A spokesperson for the DOJ stated that receiving a subpoena does not imply wrongdoing, noting that the department typically does not subpoena targets directly. However, a federal judge in a separate ruling warned that such threats against election workers could have a chilling effect on the electoral process.
Legal and Political Context
The dispute reflects broader tensions between the Trump administration and state election officials over voter integrity claims. While the administration has framed the issue as a necessary safeguard against fraud, critics argue that the efforts are politically motivated and risk disenfranchising eligible voters. Data shows that noncitizen voting is exceedingly rare and has not been shown to alter election outcomes.
Election law experts note that state and local officials are more prepared than ever to handle such challenges, with many deploying additional poll observers and legal safeguards. However, the escalation of federal scrutiny—including subpoenas issued in Washington state—has raised concerns about potential federal overreach.
Background: The Disputed Ballots
The controversy centers on a list of 20,000 registered voters in California whose citizenship status the DOJ alleges may be questionable. The administration sought to segregate and withhold their ballots from counting until citizenship could be verified. A lower court judge previously rejected this request, warning that it would wreak havoc on an ongoing election and potentially disenfranchise citizens.
California officials have consistently argued that the list is inaccurate, citing examples from other states where federal immigration data has mistakenly flagged citizens. The state’s election procedures already include safeguards to prevent noncitizen voting, such as cross-referencing with motor vehicle records and voter registration databases.
Next Steps
The DOJ has not indicated whether it plans to appeal the 9th Circuit’s ruling. Meanwhile, the subpoenas issued to election workers require testimony before a grand jury on November 4, the day after the midterm elections. Legal experts suggest that the timing of these actions could signal an intent to challenge election results if they do not favor the administration’s preferred outcomes.