The U.S. Supreme Court on November 2, 2026, rejected the Trump administration’s emergency request to force California to segregate ballots from approximately 20,000 voters flagged as potentially non-citizens, allowing the state to proceed with its election procedures ahead of the midterm elections.
The Trump administration had argued that the ballots should be isolated until citizenship status could be verified, but California and its allies maintained the list of voters was unreliable and could disenfranchise eligible voters.
Supreme Court’s Unprecedented Rejection
The Supreme Court’s one-sentence order denying the Trump administration’s request came without explanation, a rare move. California Attorney General Rob Bonta called the decision completely appropriate, very expected,
noting the lack of response from the court to the DOJ’s appeal. This was a Hail Mary.
It was baseless,
he said, adding that the court’s refusal to engage with California’s arguments was “very rare” since 2018.
The administration’s legal team, led by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, had argued that once ballots are counted, they cannot be retrieved, risking the inclusion of votes from non-citizens. Once California commingles the challenged ballots with lawful ones, there is no way to get the challenged ballots back,
Sauer wrote in a 19-page filing. However, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had already ruled against the DOJ’s emergency request, citing the high error rate in the federal list and the potential for disrupting the election.
#BREAKINGNEWS: The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a push for California to set aside thousands of mail ballots from people President Donald Trump's administration claims are noncitizens, a decision that comes on the eve of the pivotal midterm elections. https://t.co/BreUmp6yTn pic.twitter.com/FH0TsccdNd
— https://x.com/ABC7/status/2117396787866533912
California’s Safeguards and Legal Pushback
California has long defended its election processes, calling the federal government’s list of 20,000 voters highly suspect.
The state’s attorney general emphasized that the list, compiled by the Department of Homeland Security, contained inaccuracies that could wrongly flag U.S. citizens. The data is riddled with inaccuracies,
said a UCLA Voting Rights Project analysis cited in one source, which found 42% of the names on the list were not in California’s current voter file.
The dispute centered on a federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 611, which prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections. The DOJ argued that California’s refusal to segregate the ballots violated the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which gives federal law precedence over state law. However, lower courts rejected this claim, noting that the federal law does not prescribe procedures for handling citizenship challenges and that states have primary authority over election administration.
California’s stance was bolstered by a ruling from U.S. District Judge David Carter, who described the Trump administration’s efforts as “unprecedented” and likely unconstitutional.
Carter’s decision, which the 9th Circuit upheld, warned that forcing the state to create a separate system for the 20,000 ballots would jeopardize the entire election process, including Los Angeles County’s central management system.
Legal Precedents and Future Implications
The Supreme Court’s rejection leaves the underlying DOJ lawsuit unresolved, but the administration did not secure the emergency order it sought before Election Day. The case now moves to lower courts, with the DOJ arguing it is likely to succeed on the merits of its appeal.
However, California’s legal team, including U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli, has maintained that the federal government’s actions could undermine election procedures.
The decision also highlights tensions between federal and state authority in election management. California, a Democratic stronghold, has consistently resisted federal efforts to influence its voting procedures, which it claims threaten voter access.
For voters, the immediate effect is clear: California will not alter its ballot processing procedures ahead of the November 3 election. However, the legal battle highlights broader debates about voter eligibility, the role of federal oversight, and the potential for future challenges to election integrity.
The Supreme Court just denied the Trump Justice Department’s corrupt request for an injunction in the California vote count. Another complete and total defeat for the extremists.
— https://x.com/RepJeffries/status/2117392591524360439
“The federal government’s attempt to challenge a group of about 20,000 voters raised concerns under that restriction,” the 9th Circuit wrote, referring to the National Voter Registration Act’s prohibition on systematic voter-roll removals within 90 days of an election.