Judge Rejects DOJ Bid to Sequester More Than 20,000 California Ballots Before 2026 Midterms
Dek: A federal judge declined the Justice Department’s emergency request to stop California from processing mail ballots tied to a federal list of people it says are likely noncitizens.
Meta description: A California judge rejected the DOJ’s bid to sequester more than 20,000 mail ballots, leaving election officials to follow normal counting procedures.
Primary keyword: California ballot litigation 2026
Secondary keywords: DOJ noncitizen voter list, California mail ballots, 2026 midterm election administration, voter-roll data accuracy
A federal judge has rejected the Justice Department’s attempt to make California set aside mail ballots from more than 20,000 people the Trump administration says are “likely” noncitizens. The ruling came just days before the November 3, 2026, midterm elections, while counties were already processing returned ballots. 1
The decision does not resolve the lawsuit or establish whether anyone on the list voted unlawfully. It leaves California officials free to follow ordinary procedures and tests how far the federal government can intervene in state-run election administration shortly before voting concludes.
What the Justice Department asked California to do
The Justice Department filed its complaint on October 15 against the State of California. According to the department, Homeland Security Investigations and federal partners compared publicly available voter-registration records with federal immigration data and used additional “data-enrichment and verification methods” to identify people it considered likely noncitizens. 3
Federal officials sent California a list of more than 20,000 names. DOJ alleged that people on the list had been registered to vote and sent vote-by-mail ballots, and it argued that California should not count those ballots until citizenship status was independently verified. The department’s requested relief would have required officials to set the ballots aside, rather than process them through the normal sequence of signature review, ballot separation and tabulation. 3
The department emphasized a point that is not disputed: Noncitizens may not vote in federal elections. But the lawsuit sought to apply that prohibition to a list of people whose citizenship status, in many cases, remained contested. DOJ also did not tell the court how many of the more than 20,000 people had actually returned a ballot, according to Reuters. 1
Why the judge denied the emergency request
U.S. District Judge David Carter denied DOJ’s motion for a temporary restraining order on October 28. The order was issued after a hearing in Los Angeles and addressed the immediate request to stop processing ballots; it did not end the lawsuit over the broader allegations. 1
NPR reported that Carter’s 26-page ruling focused on the timing and consequences of the proposed intervention. The judge wrote that “once a vote is segregated, lasting harm has occurred,” warning that an executive branch demand based on unproven allegations could create serious risks for the election process. 2
California counties do not simply count a mail ballot when it arrives. Officials first review the return envelope and verify the signature. Once a ballot is separated from its envelope, it cannot be retrieved individually. DOJ argued this made immediate action necessary; California called a last-minute federal screening process unlawful and infeasible. 2
The public court summary posted by the Campaign Legal Center says the court denied the order because DOJ’s request rested on a federal list created with disputed data and undisclosed methods. 4 The denial is not a finding that every name on the list is eligible to vote.
California challenges the federal list’s accuracy
California officials have said they support enforcing eligibility rules but oppose using an unverified list to interrupt ballot processing. In an October 20 statement, the Secretary of State’s office said the federal demand would “sequester” ballots issued to people the government believed were likely noncitizens and could disenfranchise eligible voters. 5
The state also pointed to a preliminary review by Los Angeles County. The Secretary of State said the county found significant accuracy problems in a small sample of names supplied by the federal government, including people who did not appear to have active registrations. 5
NPR described a continuing dispute over the data. A Los Angeles County analysis found that a significant portion of the sampled individuals had records indicating they were born in the United States. A senior U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services official disputed that conclusion in court filings, saying the federal review found none were U.S.-born while acknowledging that four people “might have a claim to U.S. citizenship.” An outside expert cited by voting-rights groups told the court that the federal matching protocol was likely unreliable. 2
Those competing assessments matter because a database match is not a final citizenship determination. Records can be incomplete, names or birth dates can be matched incorrectly, and naturalization information may not appear consistently across systems. The ruling addressed whether California should halt processing on the disputed list, not whether every match was right or wrong.
A broader fight over federal election oversight
The California case is part of a wider effort by the Trump administration to scrutinize state voter rolls and election procedures before the midterms. Reuters reported that DOJ also asked Washington officials to review a list of 400 voters it said might not be citizens. In Alaska, the department filed a separate lawsuit seeking to affect certification of a Senate race if the Republican incumbent lost by a narrow margin amid concerns about a similarly named candidate. 1
States traditionally administer elections, while federal law regulates federal contests and prohibits noncitizen voting. The central dispute is how those responsibilities interact when federal officials seek to direct ballots already being processed.
The case arrives in a competitive midterm environment. Republicans entered the November 3 election with a 218–214 House edge and a 53–47 Senate majority. California has 52 House seats, the largest state delegation. 1
What to watch next
The underlying lawsuit remains active, and the Justice Department is expected to consider an appeal or additional requests for relief. NPR reported that the dispute could ultimately reach the Supreme Court, although no outcome is predetermined. 2
Watch whether DOJ produces more evidence for individual names, whether counties publish audits of the federal matches, and whether an appellate court issues guidance before ballots are fully processed. The case may clarify whether federal law lets DOJ require states to segregate ballots based on a federal eligibility assessment.
For voters, the immediate takeaway is narrower: Carter’s ruling did not cancel California’s election, validate the federal list, or decide the citizenship status of the people identified. It rejected an emergency effort to change ballot-processing procedures on the eve of voting. The consequences will depend on the evidence, any appeal, and future rulings on federal authority.
