The Supreme Court Looked at the DOJ's Ballot-Seizure Wishlist and Said: No Dissent, Just No
Conceptual illustration; not a photograph of the case.
By Dakota Jones
Desk: Political & Government | Campaigns & Elections
Development update, November 3, 2026
[OPEN]
The Supreme Court declined to intervene in the Justice Department’s effort to make California set aside ballots it said may have been cast by noncitizens. The order came Monday, November 2, just hours after the DOJ filed its emergency request, and the day before Election Day.
The Court’s order was one line. The request was denied. No dissents were noted. And the justices did not explain their reasoning.
That is the verdict. It is also not a full ruling on the underlying dispute. The Court did not issue a detailed opinion deciding whether the federal government’s list was accurate or whether California’s election procedures were lawful. It simply declined the emergency relief the DOJ asked for.
This is an update to our November 2 evening story, “The Day Before the Election, the DOJ Asked the Supreme Court to Seize 20,000 Ballots. Sure. Why Not.”. The headline’s “seize” is the kicker. The legal request was to have California set aside approximately 20,000 ballots the DOJ alleged were cast by noncitizens, and not count them until citizenship could be verified. That distinction matters. So does the timing.
The Supreme Court denied the DOJ’s emergency request on November 2. Photo: Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images, via NPR.
[WHAT THE COURT DID]
The Supreme Court denied the DOJ’s emergency application hours after it was filed on Monday. The order states: “The application for injunction pending appeal presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court is denied.”
That is the whole order. It offers no explanation. SCOTUSblog reported no noted dissents.
For viewers trying to decode the legal language: an injunction pending appeal is a request for a court to order something to happen, or stop happening, while a case continues through the appeals process. Here, the DOJ wanted an order requiring California to set aside the disputed ballots while citizenship was checked.
The Court did not grant that request. California was not ordered to create the proposed ballot-separation system. But the Court’s one-line denial should not be inflated into a sweeping ruling on every question in the case. It is a refusal to provide emergency intervention, not a written decision settling the merits.
That distinction may be less satisfying than a full explanation. It is still essential. A short order gives the public less insight into the justices’ reasoning, not permission to supply reasoning of our own.
[THE FOURTH RUNG]
Monday’s application was the fourth rung of the DOJ’s effort to obtain this relief. The dispute had already been considered by a federal district judge and a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Both rejected the emergency request. The DOJ then asked the Supreme Court to step in.
Federal Judge David Carter, a Clinton appointee, had rejected the DOJ’s request. In describing the broader conduct at issue, Carter called it “a broad, ongoing pattern of attempted election interference by federal officials.” That is Carter’s characterization, not the Supreme Court’s. The Supreme Court’s order gave no explanation at all.
On Friday, a divided Ninth Circuit panel also rejected the emergency request. The majority consisted of Judge Mark Bennett, a Trump appointee, and Judge Gabriel Sanchez, a Biden appointee. Judge Patrick Bumatay, also a Trump appointee, dissented.
The majority warned that the requested intervention could harm voters and disrupt the county’s election. Its opinion said: “[T]here is a material risk that granting the United States its requested relief would result in disenfranchisement and could jeopardize the County's entire election.”
That is not subtle language. Nor is it an assertion that every ballot identified by the DOJ was valid. It is a warning about the risks of granting the requested remedy at that point in the election process.
Election workers prepare ballots for scanning in Santa Ana, California, on October 28. Photo: via NPR.
[WHY THE NINTH CIRCUIT SAID NO]
The Ninth Circuit majority pointed to three important considerations. They are worth understanding because the DOJ’s request was not just about who appeared on a list. It was also about what courts should do with election procedures when voting is already underway.
The Purcell principle. This legal principle counsels against changing election rules close to Election Day. The concern is practical: last-minute changes can confuse voters and officials, and make election administration harder to carry out fairly. In this case, the request came on the eve of the election. “Could you build a new system in time?” is not an abstract question when ballots are already being processed.
State authority over elections. The majority pointed to the Constitution’s assignment of election administration authority to states. That does not mean states are immune from legal challenges. It does mean that a federal request to redirect state election operations calls for serious legal scrutiny, especially on a compressed timeline.
The National Voter Registration Act’s 90-day quiet period. The law bars systematic removals of ineligible voters close to a federal election. The Ninth Circuit majority cited that 90-day period in assessing the request. It is one reason the timing and scale of a proposed change matter, not an administrative footnote to be tidied up later.
Together, those points shaped the appellate court’s conclusion that the remedy could risk disenfranchisement and jeopardize the county’s election. The Supreme Court declined to order that remedy. It did not write a separate explanation adopting the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning.
That distinction is the legal equivalent of keeping the labels on the boxes. The lower-court reasoning belongs to the lower courts. The Supreme Court’s order says the application is denied.
[20,000 IS THE DOJ’S ALLEGATION, NOT A COUNT OF DISPUTED BALLOTS]
The DOJ said it identified approximately 20,000 “likely” noncitizens on California’s voter roll. It argued their ballots should not be counted until citizenship could be verified.
That figure needs careful handling. It describes the DOJ’s list, not a verified count of 20,000 ballots that were cast, received, or otherwise ready to be counted. County officials found that many names on the list were not active voter registrations and that ballots had not been mailed to many of those individuals. As a result, the actual number of ballots in dispute is likely much smaller than 20,000.
Over the weekend, UCLA’s Voting Rights Project received access to the DOJ list through a court order in a separate case, Trujillo v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Its analysis found that 42% of the names on the list did not appear on California’s current voter roll. The analysis also found naturalized citizens on the list.
Those are serious limitations for a list being used to justify an urgent, broad change in ballot handling. They do not, by themselves, establish the eligibility of every person named or resolve the status of every ballot. They do make the word “likely” carry more work than a headline can responsibly hide.
California and Los Angeles County argued that the federal list was unreliable and that separating ballots mid-voting was infeasible. Courts so far sided with those arguments in rejecting the emergency relief. That is not a declaration that every detail of the state or county position has been decided for all time. It is the outcome of the applications presented to the courts.
[THE ADMINISTRATIVE QUESTION: WHAT DOES “SET ASIDE” REQUIRE?]
For you as a voter, the phrase “set aside” can sound like a neat clerical step. Put one ballot in a separate pile. Check a record. Move on. Election administration is not a magic trick, and labels do not create a workable process.
The courts heard California and Los Angeles County argue that the DOJ’s list was unreliable and that segregating ballots while voting was already underway could not feasibly be done. The Ninth Circuit majority added a sharper concern: granting the requested relief could risk disenfranchisement and jeopardize the county’s entire election.
A ballot is a voter’s choice, not a convenient test file. Any process that delays or excludes ballots needs a reliable basis and a workable procedure. That is especially true when the government’s list includes people who do not appear on the current voter roll and naturalized citizens, according to the UCLA Voting Rights Project’s review.
The Supreme Court’s denial means it did not order California to carry out the DOJ’s requested separation. It does not tell us, in a reasoned opinion, how the justices would resolve every related dispute on a fuller record. The direct result is narrower and concrete: the emergency request did not succeed.
[THE DISPUTE DID NOT START MONDAY]
The ballot application is part of a wider escalation between the DOJ and California election officials.
The DOJ sent subpoenas to California election officials and reminded officials that they could face criminal prosecution. Late Friday, a federal judge in San Francisco issued a temporary restraining order barring the Trump administration from threatening, intimidating, or coercing election officials. The government appealed that order.
Separately, three Los Angeles County election officials were subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury on November 4. A subpoena is a legal demand for testimony or records; it is not a finding that a person committed wrongdoing. Keeping that distinction clear is not a courtesy to anyone in power. It is basic accuracy.
The current update is about the Supreme Court’s denial of the emergency ballot request. The separate restraining-order appeal and the scheduled grand jury appearances are part of the wider context, but they are not the same proceeding. One order does not decide the other. Legal disputes have a talent for multiplying paperwork without multiplying clarity.
Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder Dean Logan speaks at a press conference in June. NPR reported that his office confirmed grand jury subpoenas directed at employees.
[WHAT THE RULING DOES, AND DOES NOT, SAY]
Here is the cleanest way to read Monday’s result:
- The DOJ asked the Supreme Court to require California to set aside approximately 20,000 ballots it alleged were cast by noncitizens, pending citizenship verification.
- The Supreme Court denied the emergency request hours after it was filed.
- The order was one line, and no dissents were noted.
- The Court did not explain its reasoning in the order.
- The decision did not resolve every underlying question about the reliability of the list or the eligibility of every person named.
- The 20,000 figure is not a confirmed count of ballots in dispute. County officials found many people on the list were not actively registered and were not mailed ballots.
That last point is worth repeating because it is easy to turn an allegation into an apparent fact just by repeating the number often enough. The DOJ alleged approximately 20,000 likely noncitizens appeared on California’s voter roll. The evidence described in the reporting indicates that the list did not cleanly correspond to active registrations or ballots actually mailed. The courts considered arguments that the list was unreliable and the requested process infeasible.
Precision is not a favor to one side. It is how you keep a report from becoming a rumor with better formatting.
[FAQ]
Did the Supreme Court rule that the DOJ’s list was wrong?
The one-line order does not say that. It denies the emergency application without explaining why. Reporting on the separate UCLA Voting Rights Project analysis says 42% of names on the list did not appear on California’s current voter roll, and that the list included naturalized citizens.
Did the Court order California to set aside ballots?
No. The Court denied the DOJ’s request for that order.
Did the justices issue a full decision on the merits?
No full explanation accompanied the denial. The Supreme Court did not publish a reasoned opinion in the order provided.
Were 20,000 ballots confirmed to be in dispute?
No. The DOJ identified approximately 20,000 “likely” noncitizens on the voter roll. County officials found many people on the list were not actively registered and were not mailed ballots. The actual number of ballots in dispute is likely much smaller.
Why did the Ninth Circuit focus on timing?
The majority cited the Purcell principle against changing election rules on the eve of an election, state authority over election administration, and the NVRA’s 90-day quiet period for systematic removals of ineligible voters. It also warned that the requested relief could risk disenfranchisement and jeopardize the county’s election.
Does “no noted dissents” mean the Court explained its reasoning?
No. It means the order recorded no dissents. It does not provide the justices’ reasons.
[FINAL THOUGHTS]
The Supreme Court was asked to intervene in a high-stakes election dispute on the day before Election Day. It declined. The answer came quickly, in one line, with no noted dissents and no written explanation.
For now, the practical result is straightforward: the DOJ did not obtain an order requiring California to set aside the ballots. The legal questions are not all resolved, the other proceedings remain separate, and the DOJ’s list should not be confused with a verified total of ballots cast by ineligible voters.
As you follow the story, keep three things in view: what the DOJ alleged, what the courts actually ordered, and what the available evidence supports. Those are not interchangeable. In election coverage, treating them as if they are is how a number becomes a verdict before the facts have had a chance to catch up.
For more reporting, visit LD3 Productions’ Political & Government desk and Election Headquarters.
Sources