{"version":"1.9","identifier":"95666bf4-07ea-40f8-a126-a9a7433b5b48","language":"en-US","title":"Supreme Court rejects bid to set aside 20,000 California ballots as Judge Boasberg bars federal demands","layout":{"columns":7,"width":1024,"margin":32,"gutter":20},"componentLayouts":{"text":{"columnStart":0,"columnSpan":7,"maximumContentWidth":720,"margin":{"top":12,"bottom":12}},"photo":{"columnStart":0,"columnSpan":7,"margin":{"top":20,"bottom":20}}},"componentTextStyles":{"default":{"fontName":"HelveticaNeue","fontSize":18,"lineHeight":29,"textColor":"#171717"},"headline":{"fontName":"HelveticaNeue-Bold","fontSize":36,"lineHeight":42,"conditional":[{"conditions":{"maxViewportWidth":480},"fontSize":28,"lineHeight":34}]},"intro":{"fontName":"HelveticaNeue","fontSize":20,"lineHeight":28,"textColor":"#555555"},"caption":{"fontName":"HelveticaNeue","fontSize":13,"lineHeight":19,"textColor":"#666666"},"byline":{"fontName":"HelveticaNeue","fontSize":13,"lineHeight":20,"textColor":"#666666"},"body":{"fontName":"HelveticaNeue","fontSize":18,"lineHeight":29,"paragraphSpacingAfter":14,"linkStyle":{"textColor":"#00704a"}}},"metadata":{"canonicalURL":"https://567politics.com/news/supreme-court-denies-doj-california-ballots-boasberg-injunction-november-2026","datePublished":"2026-11-03T00:10:42.381407Z","dateModified":"2026-11-03T00:12:14.774889Z","authors":["567 Politics staff"],"excerpt":"The justices denied the Justice Department's emergency request without asking California to respond. Hours earlier, a federal judge barred demands to segregate listed voters' ballots.","thumbnailURL":"https://pub-fac99da959e344fe99d810d309cef7df.r2.dev/photos/article/95666bf4-07ea-40f8-a126-a9a7433b5b48/05427134ddc8d844022a9230df53db62.jpg","keywords":["elections"],"generatorName":"Frog News","generatorVersion":"1.0"},"components":[{"role":"title","text":"Supreme Court rejects bid to set aside 20,000 California ballots as Judge Boasberg bars federal demands","textStyle":"headline","layout":"text"},{"role":"intro","text":"The justices denied the Justice Department's emergency request without asking California to respond. Hours earlier, a federal judge barred demands to segregate listed voters' ballots.","textStyle":"intro","layout":"text"},{"role":"byline","text":"By 567 Politics staff · Published November 3, 2026","textStyle":"byline","layout":"text"},{"role":"photo","URL":"https://pub-fac99da959e344fe99d810d309cef7df.r2.dev/photos/article/95666bf4-07ea-40f8-a126-a9a7433b5b48/05427134ddc8d844022a9230df53db62.jpg","caption":"The U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington. The Court denied the Justice Department's California ballot application on Nov. 2, 2026. · Joe Ravi, CC BY-SA 3.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/), via Wikimedia Commons","accessibilityCaption":"The U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington. The Court denied the Justice Department's California ballot application on Nov. 2, 2026.","layout":"photo"},{"role":"caption","text":"The U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington. The Court denied the Justice Department's California ballot application on Nov. 2, 2026. · Joe Ravi, CC BY-SA 3.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/), via Wikimedia Commons","textStyle":"caption","layout":"text"},{"role":"body","format":"markdown","text":"The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, Nov. 2, turned down the Justice Department's emergency request to make California set aside mail ballots from more than 20,000 registered voters the federal government says are likely not citizens. The [one-line order](https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/110226zr_3eb4.pdf) in *United States v. California*, No. 26A624, says the application \"presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court is denied.\" It gives no reasons. No justice noted a dissent, [SCOTUSblog reported](https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/11/trump-administration-asks-supreme-court-to-intervene-in-california-ballots-dispute/).\n\nThe ruling came hours after the government filed, on the eve of Election Day. The same day, a federal judge in Washington barred federal agencies from demanding that California officials segregate the listed voters' ballots. And in San Francisco, a third judge heard the government's bid to pause her order against federal threats aimed at election workers. Taken together, Monday's rulings leave California to count mail ballots under its own procedures as voting closes, while several appeals and side disputes remain open.\n\n567 Politics covered the [government's Supreme Court filing earlier Monday](https://567politics.com/news/doj-supreme-court-application-california-mail-ballots-november-2026), the [Ninth Circuit's refusal last week](https://567politics.com/news/ninth-circuit-california-ballots-boasberg-noncitizen-letters-october-2026) and the [Justice Department's sanctions request in the Washington case](https://567politics.com/news/doj-chirla-contempt-request-boasberg-california-noncitizen-list-november-2026). This story reports what happened next.\n\n## What the Supreme Court did\n\nSolicitor General D. John Sauer's 19-page [application](https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/california-application-scotus.pdf) asked the justices to require California to keep the listed voters' mail ballots apart until their citizenship could be checked. \"Once California commingles the challenged ballots with lawful ones, there is no way to get the challenged ballots back,\" Sauer wrote. He argued that federal law, 18 U.S.C. 611, makes noncitizen voting in federal races a crime, so \"any ballot cast by an alien is unlawful.\" He also pointed to Nov. 10, California's deadline for receiving mail ballots, as the date by which the harm would be complete.\n\nThe request went first to Justice Elena Kagan, who handles emergency matters from the Ninth Circuit. She referred it to the full Court. The unsigned order was released to reporters shortly before 6 p.m. Eastern time, according to SCOTUSblog's Amy Howe.\n\nThe Court did not ask California to respond. [Reuters noted](https://www.centraloregondaily.com/news/nation-world/us-supreme-court-rejects-trump-administration-in-california-ballot-fight/article_086584c5-e286-52df-8ae0-2c4893cff7cd.html) that calling for a response usually signals that the justices are giving an emergency case serious thought. [Bloomberg Law](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/trumps-doj-rejected-by-supreme-court-on-california-ballots) described the same step as normal when the justices think a question \"might be a close call.\" [NBC News](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/rejects-trump-effort-target-alleged-noncitizen-voters-california-midte-rcna606607) reported that it is what the Court \"normally does in such cases.\"\n\nAn unexplained denial of emergency relief does not decide the legal questions for good. The government's appeal of the Los Angeles ruling remains before the Ninth Circuit. The order means only that the ballots will not be set aside while that appeal goes on.\n\n## How the case reached the justices\n\nThe dispute began with a July 16 letter from the Department of Homeland Security. It told California that more than 190,000 noncitizens might be registered to vote, [Bloomberg Law reported](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/trumps-doj-rejected-by-supreme-court-on-california-ballots). A week later, the secretary of state questioned the data and asked how it was compiled. On Oct. 13, the Justice Department sent state and Los Angeles County officials a revised list of about 20,000 people it called \"likely\" noncitizens who had been sent ballots. It sued on Oct. 15.\n\nU.S. District Judge David Carter in Los Angeles refused a temporary order on Oct. 28. \"Never before in American history has the federal government, on the eve of an election, sought to coerce a state and local government to abandon their own constitutional elections procedures and bend to the will of the executive branch,\" he wrote, as quoted by Reuters. On Oct. 30, a Ninth Circuit panel [denied relief by a 2-1 vote](https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/10/30/26-7231.pdf). The majority held that the Elections Clause leaves the rules for congressional elections to states unless Congress acts.\n\nThe list's accuracy has been disputed throughout. The administration says it built the list with a commercial records tool, federal checks and manual review. California says its own law already limits voting to citizens and that the list is error-prone. Bloomberg Law reported that Nevada officials said a similar federal list sent to their state turned out to contain no noncitizens.\n\n**The fight over California's federal noncitizen list**\n\n* **2026-07-16**: DHS letter flags more than 190,000 possible noncitizen registrants\n* **2026-10-13**: Justice Department sends revised list of about 20,000 names\n* **2026-10-15**: Justice Department sues California and Los Angeles County\n* **2026-10-28**: Judge Carter denies a temporary restraining order\n* **2026-10-30**: Ninth Circuit panel denies relief, 2-1\n* **2026-11-02**: Judge Boasberg bars federal segregation demands\n* **2026-11-02**: Supreme Court denies the emergency application\n\nSource: [Bloomberg Law](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/trumps-doj-rejected-by-supreme-court-on-california-ballots), [U.S. Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/110226zr_3eb4.pdf), [U.S. District Court for D.C.](https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/2026-11-02-Court-memo.pdf)\n\n## The Washington ruling: no more segregation demands\n\nEarlier Monday, Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg in Washington granted part of an emergency request from the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA) and Pedro Trujillo, a California voter. The case is *CHIRLA v. Department of Homeland Security*, No. 26-3072. His [20-page opinion](https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/2026-11-02-Court-memo.pdf) orders the Justice Department and DHS \"not to issue demands to California election officials seeking to compel the segregation of ballots, or other deviations from existing state elections procedures, based on voters' inclusion on the lists of suspected non-citizens.\"\n\nBoasberg found that the federal government had likely violated the Elections Clause. That clause gives power over election rules to the states and Congress. \"As Congress has not provided otherwise, California may decide for itself what procedures to use for verifying the citizenship of registered voters and for deciding whether to count their mail-in ballots,\" he wrote.\n\nHe rejected the government's reliance on Section 611, the federal ban on noncitizen voting. In his reading, the statute sets a rule about who may vote but does not tell states how to run elections. He called the government's argument that officials who count such ballots could be aiding and abetting a crime \"a red herring.\" He also wrote that the Justice Department had sent similar demands and lists to election officials in all 58 California counties, with letters that \"threaten legal action\" for refusing.\n\nTo find standing, Boasberg relied on CHIRLA's expert, political scientist Matt Barreto. Barreto compared the federal list with CHIRLA's list of citizen members. He found at least 22 certain full matches and 66 more near-certain matches. Looser criteria produced \"hundreds or more\" highly likely matches, and a probabilistic method flagged 6,140 member entries. Boasberg found the expert credible. He noted that some counties, including Santa Cruz, are reviewing the lists, which creates a \"non-speculative risk\" to members' votes.\n\nThe judge did not adopt the plaintiffs' broadest request. They had asked him to bar the agencies from any effort to \"impose themselves upon election administration procedures.\" He agreed with the government that this wording was vague. He also set a nominal $1 bond. [Axios reported](https://www.axios.com/2026/11/02/judge-blocks-trump-doj-california-ballot-demands) that the order does not stop federal investigations or prosecutions of unlawful voting. A separate government motion to strike part of the plaintiffs' filings and seek sanctions remains pending.\n\nBoasberg acknowledged the government's interest in election integrity. \"The President evidently believes that it would be good public policy for more stringent procedures to be put in place,\" he wrote. \"No matter how strong that policy case may be, however, it does not justify overstepping the bounds of the Executive Branch's limited constitutional authority in this domain.\"\n\n## San Francisco: a hearing on the threats order\n\nA third case was argued Monday afternoon. On Oct. 30, U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson in San Francisco barred federal officials from threatening election workers with prosecution over the list. 567 Politics covered [her original order](https://567politics.com/news/judge-thompson-doj-dhs-election-officials-threats-order-october-2026) and the [government's appeal](https://567politics.com/news/thompson-order-doj-appeal-ninth-circuit-election-workers-november-2026). The government asked her to stay the order and also asked the Ninth Circuit for an emergency stay in case No. 26-7303.\n\nAt the hearing, Thompson asked Assistant U.S. Attorney Kenneth Kao whether the list had a high error rate. \"I think that's a fair statement,\" Kao said, [according to Courthouse News](https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-presses-doj-attorney-over-unreliable-voter-list/). He said the department had tried to work with California to verify the list. Kao also argued that the unions lacked standing because the letters went to county officials, not to union members.\n\nUnion lawyer Stacey Leyton said the threats reached workers anyway. \"The defendants broadly broadcast these threats,\" she said. Thompson asked why the government had to act before the vote. \"But why is it imperative to do it now, when we're about to have an election tomorrow?\" she said. She added that the government could investigate once California had certified the vote.\n\nThompson said she would rule on the stay request, but no ruling had been reported by Monday evening. 567 Politics could not confirm the outcome from the court docket at publication time. Courthouse News reported that a hearing on a longer-term injunction is set for Nov. 13.\n\n## What officials said\n\nCalifornia officials welcomed the day's rulings and kept pressure on the administration. Before the Supreme Court acted, Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, said the filing \"reeks of desperation, and is another attempt to undermine our elections and trample on the rule of law,\" [Reuters reported](https://www.centraloregondaily.com/news/nation-world/us-supreme-court-rejects-trump-administration-in-california-ballot-fight/article_086584c5-e286-52df-8ae0-2c4893cff7cd.html).\n\nGov. Gavin Newsom wrote to federal judges on Saturday, warning that the Justice Department might seek warrants to seize ballots and voting equipment, [The Independent reported](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-california-supreme-court-ballots-gavin-newsom-b3077915.html). \"There is no legitimate law enforcement reason to seize ballots, ballot materials, and equipment needed to process and tabulate ballots,\" he wrote. On Monday he said, \"If Trump tries to meddle with California's ballots, you can be sure as hell that we'll prosecute those who help him.\" No such warrant has been reported.\n\nThe Justice Department said it would keep going. \"We will continue pursuing every available legal avenue to protect the integrity of our elections and ensure federal law is enforced,\" Acting Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter said after the filing, according to Reuters and The Independent. He said California had \"refused\" to work with the federal government on noncitizen voting. No department statement on the Supreme Court's order itself had been reported by publication.\n\n## The competing arguments\n\nThe administration's case rests on a simple premise: federal law bars noncitizens from voting in federal races, and a ballot that cannot be traced after counting cannot be removed later. On this view, setting ballots aside cancels no votes. It only buys time to check eligibility. Sauer pointed out that California's own law allows challenged ballots to be segregated.\n\nCalifornia and the voter groups argue that the Constitution assigns election rules to states and Congress, not to the president. They say a list built from commercial data and federal records is not proof of anything. They add that California voters already certify their citizenship by signing a registration affidavit, which state law treats as evidence of citizenship. They also point to federal law, which bars systematic purges of voter rolls within 90 days of a federal election.\n\nThe evidence offered so far has not settled how many listed people are noncitizens. The government has not published its full method or error rate, and its own lawyer accepted the phrase \"high error rate\" in court. CHIRLA's analysis found citizens on the list, but that work covered only its members. Studies and state audits cited by Reuters have found noncitizen voting to be rare. That research does not by itself show how many names on this list are wrong.\n\n## Pending appeals and the count through Nov. 10\n\nCalifornia will keep counting under state procedures. Mail ballots postmarked by Election Day can arrive through Nov. 10. Reuters reported that California holds 52 House seats, more than any other state, in an election where Democrats need a net gain of four seats to win a House majority.\n\nThe Ninth Circuit appeal of Carter's ruling continues, and the government may also appeal Boasberg's order. Thompson's ruling on the stay, and any Ninth Circuit action in No. 26-7303, are the next decisions to watch. The Justice Department also has [about 1,000 election monitors](https://567politics.com/news/doj-election-monitors-midterms-state-limits-november-2026) in the field for Tuesday's vote. For results and race guides, see the [United States elections page](https://567politics.com/elections/united-states).","textStyle":"body","layout":"text"}]}