Court Blocks DOJ Bid to Toss 20,000 California Ballots
Intra-Party Split Detected
Two Trump-appointed judges on the 9th Circuit panel (Bennett and dissenter aside) split, with Judge Bennett joining the Biden appointee to rule against the DOJ on jurisdictional grounds, while fellow Trump appointee Judge Bumatay dissented, arguing the court should have sided with the DOJ to stop allegedly illegal voting.
Left says
- •The ruling is a procedural win that stops a last-minute federal intervention into a state's election administration just days before voters go to the polls.
- •California election officials analyzed a sample of the DOJ's list and found a high percentage were U.S.-born, raising serious doubts about the accuracy and methodology behind the administration's noncitizen claims.
- •The lawsuit follows a pattern of the DOJ pursuing aggressive actions against alleged noncitizen voting, including criminal charges against green-card holders who may have been confused about their eligibility, which critics see as part of a broader effort to sow doubt about election integrity.
- •Newsom and other state officials view the administration's demand as federal overreach into an area traditionally controlled by states, with the 48-hour compliance deadline seen as designed to be unworkable.
Right says
- •The dissenting judge argued that once disputed ballots are commingled with legitimate ones, it becomes impossible to identify and remove them, meaning the window to prevent possible illegal votes from counting is closing fast.
- •The DOJ maintains it has established systems to quickly verify citizenship status if California would simply share its voter records, but state officials have refused to cooperate.
- •The court's decision was based on jurisdictional and procedural timing issues rather than a ruling on the merits of whether noncitizens are in fact registered to vote, leaving the underlying question unresolved.
- •Enforcing federal law against noncitizen voting in federal elections is a legitimate federal interest, and the dissent argued California's legal interpretation frustrates that congressional mandate.
Common Take
High Consensus- The 9th Circuit ruled 2-1 against the DOJ's emergency request, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the lower court hadn't been given adequate time to rule first.
- The dispute centers on roughly 20,000 California voters the DOJ claims may be noncitizens, a number California disputes based on its own sampling.
- A district court hearing on the matter is scheduled to proceed, meaning the underlying legal question remains unsettled.
- Both sides agree that preventing noncitizens from voting in federal elections is illegal and that accurate voter rolls matter for election integrity.
The Arguments
Right argues
Once disputed ballots are commingled with legitimate ones, it becomes functionally impossible to identify and remove them, so the window to prevent potentially illegal votes from counting is closing fast and urgent judicial action was justified.
Left counters
That urgency was manufactured by the DOJ's own unworkable 48-hour deadline, and California's sampling of the list found a high percentage of the flagged voters were actually U.S.-born, undermining the claim that swift, drastic action was warranted.
Left argues
This was a last-minute federal intervention into state election administration days before voters go to the polls, and the appeals court's ruling—finding no jurisdiction because the DOJ jumped the gun—reflects legitimate skepticism about the lawsuit's procedural soundness.
Right counters
The court's decision rested on timing and jurisdiction, not the merits, meaning the underlying question of whether noncitizens are registered to vote remains unresolved and the federal government's substantive concern was never actually addressed.
Right argues
Enforcing federal law against noncitizen voting in federal elections is a legitimate and congressionally mandated federal interest, and California's legal interpretation that blocks cooperation effectively frustrates that mandate by allowing suspect ballots to be processed unchecked.
Left counters
California argues it is complying with its own election laws and that the DOJ provided no data or methodology to substantiate its noncitizen claims, making the demand look more like an attempt to sow doubt about election integrity than a good-faith enforcement effort.
Right argues
The DOJ maintains it has established systems to quickly verify citizenship status and only needs California to share its voter records, framing the state's refusal to cooperate as the real obstacle to resolving the dispute.
Left counters
State officials counter that the DOJ's list itself appears flawed—a sample review found many flagged individuals were U.S.-born—so sharing records with a system of unproven accuracy risks disenfranchising legitimate voters rather than catching fraud.
Left argues
This lawsuit fits a broader pattern of aggressive DOJ actions, including criminal charges against green-card holders who may have simply been confused about their eligibility, suggesting the administration's noncitizen-voting narrative is being used to create doubt about election integrity rather than address a well-documented problem.
Right counters
Even if some individual cases involve confusion rather than intent, the existence of any noncitizens on the voter rolls justifies federal scrutiny, and dismissing the DOJ's concerns as politically motivated ignores the legitimate congressional interest in keeping federal elections limited to citizens.
Challenge Questions
These questions target genuine internal contradictions — meant to provoke honest reflection.
Right asks Left
“If a sample review found that a meaningful number of people on the DOJ's list were not U.S.-born, does that not suggest the list contains at least some genuine noncitizens—and if so, what process would the left consider legitimate for removing them before an election, given that it rejected this one as too rushed?”
Left asks Right
“If the DOJ truly has reliable systems to verify citizenship quickly, why did it set a 48-hour deadline and pursue emergency appellate relief rather than allowing the normal district court process to run its course, as the appeals court suggested it should have?”
Outlier Report
Left Fringe
Figures like Marc Elias and some voting-rights advocacy groups (e.g., ACLU affiliates) who argue any noncitizen-voting enforcement effort is inherently a voter-suppression tactic represent a more absolutist ~15-20% of the left that rejects the legitimacy of such reviews altogether, regardless of methodology.
Right Fringe
Commentators like Mike Lindell-style election-fraud absolutists and some America First Legal-aligned voices treat the 20,000-name list as proven fact rather than a preliminary, disputed estimate; this harder-edged faction, roughly 20-25% of the right, dismisses the LA sampling data showing US-born individuals on the list as itself suspect or part of a cover-up.
Noise Assessment
High noise ratio: cable news and social media amplify this as a dramatic 'stolen election' or 'voter suppression' narrative, while most Americans likely view it as a procedural legal dispute they are only loosely following, with actual sentiment far less polarized than online discourse suggests.
Sources (12)
A federal appeals court appeared skeptical on Sunday of a lawsuit filed by President Donald Trump's administration that seeks to force California officials to set aside thousands of mail-in ballots the administration says were sent to noncitizens ahead of midterm elections.
The DOJ's lawsuit accused state officials of not meeting a 48-hour deadline to review the thousands of names the administration deemed suspicious.
Summary A 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel on Sunday heard arguments from the Department of Justice, which argued that California should not count 20,000 ballots from voters suspected of being noncitizens until their immigration status can be verified. The appeals court did not issue a decision on Sunday, but a district judge is...
<p>Newsom accuses Trump of ‘assault on democracy’ as DoJ claims 20,000 registered voters in state are non-citizens</p><p>A US federal appeals court rejected the Trump administration’s move to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/oct/20/doj-non-citizens-la">block California</a> from counting the ballots of 20,000 registered voters that the justice department claims are non-citizens.</p><p>The court on Monday ruled 2-1 against Donald Trump’s justice department in the dispute, denying the administration’s demand that election officials segregate the thousands of ballots until people on the list could verify their citizenship. The justice department had given the California secretary of state 48-hours to carry out the order, which state election officials refused – leading to the lawsuit.</p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/oct/26/court-california-ballots">Continue reading...</a>
A federal appeals court panel Monday refused to order California to set aside 20,000 mail ballots that the Trump administration says are likely from noncitizens. In a 2-1 vote, the panel found it has no jurisdiction and the administration needs to wait for the trial judge to rule. He’s set to hold a hearing Tuesday, but…
A federal appeals court appeared unlikely to immediately agree to the Trump administration’s bid to segregate 20,000 California ballots it says are likely from noncitizen voters, expressing skepticism at a rare Sunday hearing that a trial judge needs to move quicker. “I don’t see how we have jurisdiction,” said U.S. Circuit Judge Mark Bennett.  The Department of Justice…
A federal appeals court refused Monday to order California to sequester 20,000 ballots of people President Trump says likely are noncitizens, saying the administration didn't give a lower court enough time to weigh the case.
A panel of federal appellate judges on Sunday questioned the timing, constitutionality and authority of the Justice Department's demand that California election officials set aside thousands of mail ballots from people the federal government suspects may not be citizens.
Appeals court rejects DOJ request for immediate order demanding California segregate 20,000 mail-in ballots from those Trump administration says are likely non-citizens.
Anthropic admitted that its Claude chatbot accessed voter statistics in Georgia without being instructed to do so. Also on Monday, an appeals court ruled against the Trump administration's bid to block certain votes in California. CBS News election law expert and contributor David Becker has more.
By a 2-1 vote, a federal appeals court panel denied the Trump administration’s request that it immediately order the state to set aside 20,000 mail-in ballots.