Supreme Court Denies Emergency Bid to Force California to Set Aside Ballots Tied to Alleged Noncitizens

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected the Trump administration’s emergency bid to force California to set aside ballots tied to roughly 20,000 voters the federal government alleges are “likely noncitizens,” leaving those ballots subject to the state’s normal election procedures on the eve of the 2026 midterm elections.

In a short, unsigned order issued one day before Election Day, the justices said: “The application for injunction pending appeal presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court is denied.”

The immediate effect is narrow but significant. The administration failed to win an order requiring California election officials to sequester vote-by-mail ballots linked to names on a federal list of people the government said were likely not U.S. citizens. For now, those ballots remain governed by California’s usual process as voting continues ahead of the Nov. 3 midterms.

The emergency request grew out of a federal lawsuit the U.S. Department of Justice filed Oct. 15 against the State of California and Los Angeles County election officials. The case followed an Oct. 13 push by federal officials working with the Department of Homeland Security, including U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and Homeland Security Investigations.

According to court filings, DOJ and DHS hand-delivered a password-protected drive to Los Angeles County containing the so-called October List, a roster of more than 20,000 names. Federal officials asked counties to review the list within 48 hours and set aside ballots if citizenship could not be verified.

California officials challenged both the timing and the reliability of that request. By then, voting by mail was already well underway. California had mailed ballots starting Oct. 1, and by Oct. 13 Los Angeles County had already sent about 5.9 million ballots and processed more than 331,000, according to district court filings.

That timing was central to why lower courts refused to intervene. U.S. District Judge David O. Carter of the Central District of California denied the government’s request for a temporary restraining order on Oct. 28, writing: “The Government’s Application for Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED.”

Carter said requiring counties to separate ballots at such a late stage would “wreak havoc and disrupt the election.” He also pointed to the risk that eligible voters could be disenfranchised if election procedures were changed after voting had already started.

The case also implicated a broader rule of election law. Federal law, including the National Voter Registration Act’s 90-day “quiet period,” limits systematic voter-roll removals close to a federal election because of the danger of erroneous removals and lost votes. The lower-court record also shows California officials questioned the federal government’s methodology and whether the list was reliable enough to justify emergency action.

After Carter’s ruling, the administration sought emergency relief from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which also rejected the request. The Supreme Court’s action leaves those lower-court rulings in place for now without resolving the broader dispute.

The litigation, however, is continuing. On Oct. 29, Carter appointed Daniel B. Garrie as a technical special master, a court-appointed expert to help develop the factual record in the case. He also scheduled an evidentiary hearing for Nov. 13, when the court is expected to take a closer look at the disputed list, the federal government’s methods and California’s response.

So while the Supreme Court declined to step in at the last minute, the underlying fight over the administration’s claims and California’s handling of the voter data is far from over.