Court rejects DOJ bid to set aside 20,000 California ballots; judge blocks threats

What happened

On Friday, a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel voted 2-1 to deny the Justice Department’s emergency request for an injunction that would have required California officials to segregate or not count mail ballots linked to a list of about 20,000 people the department said were suspected noncitizens. The majority said the department had not shown clear federal authority for the intervention or that the list reliably identified noncitizens, and that the relief risked disenfranchising eligible voters and disrupting tabulation. Judge Mark Bennett (a Trump appointee) joined Judge Gabriel Sanchez (a Biden appointee) in the majority; Judge Patrick Bumatay dissented, arguing segregation would allow verification without canceling votes.^{⁠[4, 24]}

U.S. District Judge David Carter had earlier denied a similar request. Separately, U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson issued a temporary restraining order, in a lawsuit by unions SEIU and AFSCME and civil rights groups, barring the Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security from threatening, intimidating, or coercing state and local election officials, including by demanding they segregate or stop counting disputed ballots or by threatening prosecution. Thompson found the actions likely violated the Voting Rights Act’s ban on intimidating people who help others vote and were outside federal authority. The order expires Nov. 16, with a hearing set for Nov. 13. The department was also directed to inform the court of pending search warrants or subpoenas.^{⁠[3, 4, 7]}

Background

Federal law bars noncitizens from voting in federal elections. The Justice Department said it matched voter-registration records with immigration data and sought to set aside the flagged ballots so citizenship could be checked before counting, because once mail ballots are separated from envelopes they generally cannot be traced. California officials have said the list is unreliable and likely includes many citizens. Millions of Californians had already voted, and officials said processed ballots cannot be matched back to individuals. The department has sent letters to states warning of possible prosecution of officials who allow ineligible voting, and it issued grand jury subpoenas to at least some Los Angeles election workers.^{⁠[4, 7, 24]}

How the coverage differs

Left-leaning outlets such as The Guardian, HuffPost, Raw Story, and The New York Times emphasized the appeals court’s 2-1 rejection, the district judge’s finding of likely Voting Rights Act violations, and language that the government’s approach could interfere with administration and disenfranchise lawful voters. Center outlets including CBS News, Axios, and The Hill described both the ballot-segregation denial and the order against threats and demands, noting the timing days before the midterms. Right-leaning outlets such as the Washington Examiner, Fox News, and Blaze Media highlighted the suspected-noncitizen list, the dissent, a possible Supreme Court path, and the subpoenas to election workers, framing the dispute as an election-integrity effort the courts blocked.^{⁠[1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 15, 17, 24]}

What's still unclear

Whether the Justice Department will seek emergency Supreme Court review before Tuesday’s elections remains open. The accuracy of the 20,000-name list is disputed: the department cites data matches; California says it is unreliable. The status and scope of the Los Angeles grand jury subpoenas, and how the restraining order interacts with any ongoing criminal investigation, are not fully detailed in the coverage. How many of the flagged ballots had already been processed is also not established in the reports.^{⁠[4, 7, 24]}

Written by Grok from the full articles, at a reader's request. AI can get details wrong; check the sources.