Supreme Court rejects bid to set aside 20,000 California ballots on the eve of the midterms
The US Supreme Court on Monday denied the Justice Department's emergency request to force California to set aside — and not count until citizenship is verified — mail ballots cast by about 20,000 registered voters the Trump administration says are likely noncitizens. The court acted hours after the request was filed on the eve of Tuesday's midterm elections, in a one-sentence unsigned order with no reasoning and no noted dissents, and without first asking California to respond. It was the administration's third court loss in the case in a week: a federal judge refused the request on 28 October and a divided 9th Circuit panel refused again on Friday. The underlying lawsuit continues. The claim that the 20,000 are noncitizens is the administration's allegation — courts that examined the list found it flawed, with apparent US citizens flagged — and is carried on this page as an allegation, not a finding.
Checking in progress
This story is still being checked. Claims below are published as claims — never dressed as facts — and each one moves only when the evidence earns it.
- Collecting reportsDone
- Grouping the versionsDone
- Checking claims6 of 6 claims checked
- 4Human gateWe are here
6 of 6 claims checked so far · step 4 of 4: Human gate
Key points
- The Supreme Court denied the emergency request on Monday, hours after it was filed — one sentence, no reasoning, no noted dissents, no response sought from California (CNN; USA Today; Bloomberg Law; Reuters).
- It was the third refusal in a week: Judge Carter on 28 October and a 2–1 9th Circuit panel on Friday had already said no.
- The 20,000 are voters the administration calls likely noncitizens — an allegation the lower courts found rested on a flawed list, carried here as disputed, not as fact.
- The underlying lawsuit continues; California counts its ballots under its existing procedures in Tuesday's midterms.
Watch: the moment itself
Direct video sits at the top of Vozia's evidence ladder — the moment itself, from its owner. Embedded from its home platform; we never download or re-host it.
Video: CBS News · Watch on YouTube
What happened
The Justice Department sued California in October, arguing the state is preventing enforcement of the 1996 federal law that makes it a crime for noncitizens to vote in federal elections. The administration's list began, in July, as a Department of Homeland Security letter suggesting more than 190,000 possible noncitizens might be registered; in October the Justice Department sent a revised list of about 20,000 people it called likely noncitizens who had been sent ballots (Bloomberg Law).
The fight reached the Supreme Court on the last day before the midterms, which decide which party controls Congress for the final two years of President Trump's second term. The Constitution gives states and Congress — not the executive branch — responsibility for regulating federal elections (USA Today), and the justices have long warned, under the Purcell principle, against federal courts changing election rules at the last minute (CNN).
Both sides, in their own words
Both sides heard. Neither believed for free. Publishing a side's version is not endorsing it — the claim checks below are where verdicts live.
Side A · The US administration's case
- Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the court the United States had identified more than 20,000 people registered in California who, in the United States' view, are likely not US citizens (CNN, quoting the filing).
- The Justice Department argues California is frustrating enforcement of the federal law criminalising noncitizen voting, and that once challenged ballots are commingled with lawful ones they cannot be retrieved — so they must be set aside now (CNN; USA Today).
- In dissent at the 9th Circuit, Judge Patrick Bumatay called the request reasonable: it would not cancel any vote, only allow time to verify eligibility (USA Today; CNN).
Side B · California's and the lower courts' position
- Every court to hear the request refused it: Judge David Carter on 28 October, a 2–1 9th Circuit panel on Friday, and now the Supreme Court (CNN; USA Today; Bloomberg Law).
- The 9th Circuit held the federal government has no power to dictate how states run elections, warned of a material risk of disenfranchising valid voters, and invoked the Purcell principle against changing election rules on the eve of a vote (CNN).
- California says it already has safeguards and that the process used to build the administration's list is 'highly suspect'; voting-rights groups say past noncitizen claims have not withstood scrutiny (USA Today; CNN).
Independently verified
The Supreme Court on Monday 2 November denied the Justice Department's emergency request to force California to set aside mail ballots from about 20,000 registered voters the administration calls likely noncitizens, until each voter's citizenship is verified. The order was one sentence, unsigned, with no reasoning and no noted dissents; the justices acted hours after the filing and did not ask California for a response first. The case is United States v. California, 26A624. The request had already been refused twice in the week before: US District Judge David Carter denied it on 28 October, writing that never before had the federal government, on the eve of an election, sought to coerce a state to abandon its own constitutional election procedures, and that the administration had not shown a credible process for building its list; a divided 9th Circuit panel (2–1) refused again on Friday, citing the risk of disenfranchising valid voters, the Purcell principle and states' constitutional authority over elections, with Judge Patrick Bumatay dissenting. The emergency denial is not a final ruling on the underlying lawsuit, which the Justice Department filed against California in October and which continues in the lower courts; California's existing counting procedures stay in place for Tuesday's midterms. In a separate Washington case over the same lists, US District Judge Tanya Chutkan on Monday 2 November temporarily barred the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security from sending states lists of registered voters the administration says may not be citizens, and from asking state officials to separate out those voters' ballots or hold them uncounted until citizenship is proven. Chutkan said the administration's data may not be reliable, meaning there was a risk that lawfully registered voters would be disenfranchised. The two sides' positions in the Washington case: the plaintiffs allege the administration is violating the Privacy Act of 1974, which restricts the federal government's ability to disclose sensitive private information, and told the court the policy risks voter confusion, intimidation and the disenfranchisement of lawful voters; the Justice Department said in a court filing on Saturday that its letters to California and Washington were part of an effort to enforce the federal law banning noncitizen voting and did not amount to a distinct policy subject to review by a federal court.Not yet verified
Nothing outstanding.Claim by claim
Why this label: The denial, its speed, the one-sentence form and the absence of noted dissents are reported identically by CNN and USA Today (both read in full in this pass), Bloomberg Law and Reuters (via syndication) — four independent reports of the court's action. The court's own order list had not been read directly when this page published, which is one reason the story opens in Checking state; the action itself is not in doubt across the reports.
On the ladder: a claim earns Verified from primary evidence, or from two independent sources that do not copy each other.
Why this label: Carter's wording and reasoning and the 9th Circuit's 2–1 decision, its grounds and Bumatay's dissent are carried in both CNN's and USA Today's full reports, read in this pass, and in the queue's DW/AP/Bloomberg account of the same rulings.
On the ladder: a claim earns Verified from primary evidence, or from two independent sources that do not copy each other.
Why this label: This is the administration's allegation, stated in its own filing (Solicitor General Sauer, quoted by CNN) — not a verified finding. California calls the list's method 'highly suspect' (USA Today); the district court found the administration had not shown a credible process for creating it, and reporting of a court-ordered analysis of the list found thousands of apparent US citizens flagged (DW, in the queue entry). No voter on the list has been shown in the reports read to have voted unlawfully.
On the ladder: credible sources conflict, so we show both workings. One side's own statement is that side's position — never proof.
Show all claims (3 more)
Why this label: Stated in the queue's AP/DW/Bloomberg account and consistent with CNN's and USA Today's reports: the Supreme Court acted only on the emergency request. The midterms on Tuesday 3 November decide control of Congress (CNN; USA Today).
On the ladder: a claim earns Verified from primary evidence, or from two independent sources that do not copy each other.
Why this label: The ruling is reported by Reuters (read in full in this pass, via its syndicated copy). The case itself — League of Women Voters v. DHS, No. 1:26-cv-03602-TSC (D.D.C.) — and its Saturday hearing are independently documented by Democracy Docket's court coverage (read in full): the plaintiffs are voting-rights and privacy groups including the League of Women Voters, LULAC and EPIC, who allege a Privacy Act violation (an allegation, not a finding — see the next claim), and at the hearing the Justice Department's lawyer conceded 'the government has made mistakes' on the lists. Chutkan's written order had not been read directly when this update published; it is in the don't-know list. This is a distinct case from the California suit above — a nationwide bar on sending the lists, not a ruling on California's ballots themselves.
On the ladder: a claim earns Verified from primary evidence, or from two independent sources that do not copy each other.
Why this label: Verified as the parties' stated positions: the plaintiffs' Privacy Act allegation and arguments are in Reuters' report and Democracy Docket's hearing coverage, both read in full in this pass; the Justice Department's Saturday-filing position is Reuters'. Positions and an allegation — none of it is a finding, and Chutkan's temporary bar is not a ruling on the Privacy Act claim's merits.
On the ladder: a claim earns Verified from primary evidence, or from two independent sources that do not copy each other.
What we know / what we don't know yet
What we know
- What the Supreme Court did, and how fast: an emergency denial, in one sentence, with no reasoning and no noted dissents, without asking California to respond — reported identically by CNN, USA Today, Bloomberg Law and Reuters.
- The week's lower-court history: Carter's 28 October refusal and the 9th Circuit's 2–1 refusal on Friday, with Bumatay dissenting.
- That the underlying lawsuit continues and California's existing procedures govern Tuesday's count.
Show more (1)
- That a second judge has now barred the wider practice nationwide while a case proceeds: Judge Chutkan's Monday order in Washington stops the Justice Department and DHS sending the 'likely noncitizen' lists to states, and making ballot-segregation demands, on a temporary basis (Reuters).
What we don't know yet
- The Supreme Court's own order list, read directly — reports of the order agree, but Vozia had not read the court's own document when this page published.
- How many of the roughly 20,000 listed voters actually cast ballots in this election, and how many of them are in fact US citizens — no settled count exists in the reports read.
- The outcome of the underlying lawsuit on its merits.
Show more (1)
- Judge Chutkan's written order in the Washington case, read directly — the ruling is known from Reuters' report of it and the case's documented Saturday hearing, and how long the temporary bar runs has not been read from the order itself.
Why it matters
A president's administration asked the nation's highest court, on the day before an election, to order a state to sideline 20,000 people's ballots on an allegation its own lower courts had found unproven — and the court refused within hours, without even asking the state to reply. The decision keeps 20,000 Californians' votes in the ordinary count and draws, for this election at least, the line the lower courts drew: election rules are for states and Congress, and they do not change on the eve of a vote.
Background
Show the background timeline (4)
The Justice Department sues California over enforcement of the federal law criminalising noncitizen voting (queue #1095 background).
US District Judge David Carter denies the administration's request to set aside the listed voters' ballots.
A divided 9th Circuit panel (2–1) refuses the request again, citing disenfranchisement risk, the Purcell principle and states' election authority; Judge Bumatay dissents.
The Justice Department files its emergency request at the Supreme Court; the court denies it the same day, hours later, in a one-sentence order (26A624).
Update history
No silent edits. Every change is written here, with its time.
- Latest
Update (queue #1138): a second ruling, in a separate Washington case (League of Women Voters v. DHS) — Judge Tanya Chutkan on Monday temporarily barred the Justice Department and DHS from sending states the 'likely noncitizen' voter lists and from asking officials to separate those voters' ballots or hold them uncounted, saying the administration's data may not be reliable (Reuters, read in full; the case and its Saturday hearing documented by Democracy Docket, read in full). Two claims added: the ruling, and both sides' positions (the plaintiffs' Privacy Act allegation; the Justice Department's enforcement filing). Chutkan's written order has not been read directly and is added to the don't-know list. Note, kept separate: Reuters also reports a Monday 9th Circuit panel decision in a different case clearing the government to threaten officials with prosecution over non-compliance — it is not part of this page's California set-aside rulings and is not folded into any claim here. Video check: no new official-channel video of the Chutkan ruling was verified in this pass; the story's existing CBS News video stands.
Address correction: this story's web address has been corrected, because the original address read as if the ballots themselves had been rejected. The bid was rejected — the ballots are counted. The headline and reporting are unchanged.
Story published in Checking state (queue #1095). Basis: CNN and USA Today read in full in this pass, with Bloomberg Law and Reuters in agreement on the Supreme Court's denial; the court's own order list had not been read directly and is carried in the don't-know list. CBS News video attached (oEmbed 200).