On Tuesday, October 28, 2026, a Los Angeles federal courtroom heard arguments that could reshape the counting of roughly 20,000 mail ballots flagged by the Justice Department as likely non-citizens. U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, a Clinton appointee, expressed clear doubt about the department’s request for an emergency temporary restraining order that would force California to segregate those votes before the November 3 midterm election.
Judge Carter’s concerns and procedural steps
During a 3½-hour hearing, Carter signaled that he was not prepared to grant the injunction on the spot. He announced he would appoint a special master to examine the methodology the DOJ used to compile the list of alleged non-citizen voters. The judge asked pointed questions about the “systems” and “algorithms” behind the data, emphasizing that any decision must be based on a transparent record. He warned that the request represented a “monumental change” to California’s election administration and could jeopardize the timely tabulation of results.
Legal fight over the 20,000-ballot list
The dispute traces back to a lawsuit filed on October 15, when the DOJ alleged that California failed to review a list of roughly 20,000 voters that the Trump administration labeled as likely non-citizens. First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli, the Trump-appointed head of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Central District of California, argued that the federal government was merely asking the state to comply with the law that bars non-citizens from voting. He insisted the request was “narrow” and that the state could simply “separate” the flagged ballots until citizenship could be confirmed.
State officials and a coalition of voting-rights advocates pushed back, contending that the suit violated long-standing constitutional principles that reserve election administration to the states. A preliminary review of a random sample of 200 names from the DOJ’s list, conducted by Los Angeles officials, revealed a “high percentage” of individuals who claim U.S. birth and many with no voting history at all. The plaintiffs also condemned recent DOJ letters that warned county election workers of criminal penalties should they count any of the flagged ballots, describing the warnings as intimidation.
On Monday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals—comprising two Trump appointees and one Biden appointee—rejected the DOJ’s bid for an emergency order, stating the appellate court lacked jurisdiction because Carter had not yet issued a ruling. The panel’s unsigned opinion, though brief, indicated that even on the merits the request would likely fail, citing federal law that bars federal interference in elections immediately before voting takes place.
Broader political ramifications
The hearing arrives amid a broader push by the Trump administration to intervene in state-run elections across the country, especially in states with large immigrant populations. While instances of non-citizen voting are statistically rare, the administration frames the issue as a matter of election integrity. Critics argue the strategy amounts to a “recipe for disenfranchisement” and an attempt to overturn established state election frameworks without congressional approval.
Judge Carter concluded the hearing by urging Federal prosecutors to cease “any threats to state and county elected employees,” echoing his earlier comment: “This court believes it would be wise that any threats to state and county elected employees cease immediately.” He indicated that a ruling governing the case’s next steps would be issued by the following Wednesday, leaving the fate of the 20,000 ballots—and the midterm election’s final count—still hanging in the balance.
