Federal law prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal contests. However, the central question in this case is whether the administration has provided sufficient grounds to require California to delay counting ballots associated with the flagged registrations.
The Supreme Court is now being asked to weigh in after two lower courts declined to grant the administration the emergency relief it requested.
DOJ Argues Federal Election Law Must Be Enforced
The dispute originated on October 15, when the Justice Department filed a lawsuit against California in federal court in Los Angeles. The department argued that state officials should not count ballots from individuals identified as likely noncitizens until their eligibility could be established.
The administration maintained that its request was narrowly focused on enforcing existing federal election law, rather than preventing eligible Americans from voting.
According to the government’s court filings, the Department of Homeland Security provided California officials with information identifying more than 20,000 individuals believed to be noncitizens who were registered to vote and had been sent mail-in ballots.
Federal agencies reportedly developed the list by examining voter registration records alongside citizenship and immigration information. The administration wanted California to place ballots associated with those individuals in a separate category while their citizenship status was investigated.
The request immediately encountered resistance from California officials, who questioned the reliability of the federal government’s information and declined to implement the proposed procedure.
The administration subsequently turned to the courts, arguing that allowing ballots from potentially ineligible voters to be counted without further verification would undermine federal election law.
At issue is 18 U.S.C. § 611, which makes it unlawful for noncitizens to vote in federal elections, subject to limited statutory exceptions.
However, the government’s position has faced substantial legal opposition over whether federal authorities can compel a state to introduce a new ballot-handling procedure so close to an election.
Federal Judge Rejects Trump’s Request, Delivers Sharp Rebuke
On October 28, U.S. District Judge David Carter rejected the Trump administration’s request for a temporary restraining order.
Carter took issue with the federal government’s attempt to require California to change its election procedures shortly before voters headed to the polls.
In his ruling, the judge emphasized the constitutional division of authority between Washington and individual states, arguing that the administration’s requested intervention would improperly interfere with California’s responsibility for administering elections.
“This case is about the right of every American citizen to vote in a free and fair election,” Carter said in his ruling.
He went further in criticizing the administration’s approach, writing:
“Never before in American history has the federal government, on the eve of an election, sought to coerce a state and local government to abandon their own Constitutional elections procedures and bend to the will of the Executive Branch,” Carter wrote. “In bringing this lawsuit, the Executive would have this Court believe that it reigns as a sole sovereign. But California and its people are sovereign, too.”
The ruling represented a significant setback for the Justice Department, which had argued that California should take additional precautions before including the disputed ballots in its election totals.
California officials, meanwhile, maintained that the federal government’s list was not sufficiently reliable to justify withholding ballots from registered voters.
The judge’s decision also reflected concerns that individuals who are legally entitled to vote could be caught up in the administration’s proposed verification process.
Those concerns became central to the next stage of the legal battle.
Ninth Circuit Also Refuses Emergency Intervention
Following Carter’s decision, the Justice Department attempted to secure emergency relief from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The appeals court also declined to grant the administration’s request, leaving California free to continue processing the ballots under its existing election procedures.
The disagreement among the judges highlighted the competing legal arguments. The administration insisted that federal law prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections, while the opposing position emphasized the potential consequences of removing or delaying ballots based on information that had not been independently established.
One judge, Patrick Bumatay, dissented from the appeals court’s decision, indicating that he would have granted the administration’s requested relief.
Undeterred by the setbacks, the Justice Department took its case to the Supreme Court on Monday, November 2, seeking an emergency order before Election Day.
Supreme Court Delivers Its Decision
The Supreme Court ultimately rejected the administration’s emergency request on November 2.
The justices issued a brief order without providing an explanation or publicly indicating any dissent. Consequently, California officials were not required to separate the approximately 20,000 disputed ballots before counting them.
The decision marked another setback for the administration’s attempt to obtain judicial intervention in California’s handling of the election.
The broader controversy, however, raises important questions about how federal authorities and state election officials should address potential problems with voter registration records.
The administration has argued that federal election laws must be enforced consistently and that suspected violations deserve investigation. California officials have countered that questionable data should not be sufficient grounds to delay ballots belonging to potentially eligible citizens.
The case also demonstrates how disagreements over election administration can quickly become constitutional disputes when federal and state authorities take opposing positions.
For now, the Supreme Court’s decision leaves California’s existing ballot-counting procedures in place. Whether the federal government’s underlying citizenship concerns can be established through further investigation remains a separate legal question.
