Ninth Circuit questions Trump DOJ's emergency request to set aside 20,000 California mail ballots

Federal Court Weighs DOJ’s Request to Set Aside California Mail‑In Ballots

A three‑judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard arguments on Sunday about whether the Justice Department should compel California to set aside thousands of mail‑in ballots it says were sent to people who may not be U.S. citizens. The case, filed by the Trump administration, could affect the state’s handling of ballots in the upcoming mid‑term elections.

The Emergency Request

On Oct. 15, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed an emergency petition asking the Ninth Circuit to order California election officials to remove from the vote any mail‑in ballots that match a list of roughly 20,000 voters the DOJ says are noncitizens. The DOJ says it wants those ballots to be withheld while eligibility is reviewed, rather than being processed with the rest of the election ballots.

“Each day without a ruling risks allowing additional ballots to be processed before the citizenship dispute can be resolved,” the DOJ said in its filing. It argued that “hundreds of thousands of California ballots could be tabulated each day while the dispute remains unresolved,” and urged the court to act immediately.

California, by contrast, contends that the federal government has no authority to interfere with state election law unless Congress passes a federal statute that specifically addresses the timing, place, or manner of elections. “When it comes to rules of elections administration, the federal government has no power to interfere with the states unless Congress passes a law governing the time, place, or manner of elections,” state officials said. They also said the DOJ’s theory would “turn the Constitution on its head.”

Court’s Questions

The panel, consisting of judges Mark Bennett (a Trump appointee), Gabriel Sanchez (a Biden appointee), and Patrick Bumatay (another Trump appointee), heard about two hours of testimony from attorneys representing both sides. The court examined the DOJ’s legal basis for the injunction and also questioned whether it had jurisdiction at this stage.

Judge Bennett asked the DOJ attorneys, “It seems to me that you want us to issue an injunction that is entirely inconsistent with the law that the California legislature has adopted pursuant to the Elections Clause,” and followed up with, “How can we do that?” Judge Sanchez queried the court’s jurisdiction, noting that “the district court has yet to rule on the DOJ’s request and a hearing before U.S. District Judge David Carter remains scheduled for Tuesday.” Judge Bumatay focused on California’s handling of the suspected noncitizen voters, questioning whether the state’s safeguards were adequate.

Background on the Ballot List

California began mailing absentee and mail‑in ballots in early October, a process that has already reached more than three million voters statewide, including over 500,000 in Los Angeles County. In a preliminary review of a portion of the DOJ’s list, Los Angeles County officials identified apparent discrepancies, including people born in the United States or who were not registered to vote.

California officials have disputed the DOJ’s underlying data and argue that the state has robust safeguards against noncitizen voting. They say the federal request would undermine state authority over elections and violate the Constitution’s Elections Clause, which grants state legislatures primary control over election administration.

Next Steps

The Ninth Circuit said it would try to issue a ruling as quickly as possible. Meanwhile, a district court hearing before Judge David Carter is scheduled for Tuesday, and the DOJ has requested emergency relief because the district court had not ruled by the deadline it sought.

The decision will determine whether California must temporarily suspend the counting of a chunk of mail‑in ballots in a race that will shape the nation’s political landscape. The case underscores the continuing legal battles over election integrity, voter eligibility, and the balance of federal and state power in the run‑up to the mid‑term elections.