A federal judge on October 28, 2026, rejected the Trump administration’s attempt to force California election officials to segregate more than 20,000 mail-in ballots submitted by people the Justice Department says are not U.S. citizens. U.S. District Judge David Carter concluded that the late request conflicted with constitutional principles governing state control of elections and raised serious questions about the government’s verification process. The ruling allows California to continue processing the disputed ballots under its established procedures as the November 3 midterms approach, though the Justice Department has signaled an appeal.

Federal Judge Rejects Emergency Ballot Order

The Justice Department asked California to separate mail-in ballots linked to roughly 20,000 people the administration says are not citizens and prevent those ballots from being counted. Carter declined to issue the requested emergency order, allowing election officials to continue handling the ballots under the state’s established procedures.

The decision came at a particularly sensitive moment. Mail voting was already underway in California, and the ruling arrived only days before the November 3 elections, when voters across the country will decide control of the House and Senate. The court concluded that granting the administration’s request so close to Election Day would interfere with an election already in progress.

Carter also rejected the premise that the federal government could displace state authority over election administration at the last minute. In his view, a rushed process separating ballots based on the government’s list could disrupt election workers, chill participation and undermine the votes of citizens whose eligibility had not been reliably established.

The ruling stops the immediate separation plan, but it does not erase the underlying dispute over voter eligibility. It also does not establish that every person named by the Justice Department is eligible to vote. Instead, Carter focused on the absence of a credible and transparent process for determining which ballots should be withheld.

Why It Matters

The case places federal election authority and state control on direct collision less than a week before the midterms. Election administration is traditionally governed through state and local systems, and the court found that the administration’s last-minute intervention risked upending procedures that were already operating.

For election officials, the potential disruption extended beyond the 20,000 ballots identified in the Justice Department’s list. Carter reasoned that allowing either party to seek similar emergency relief could encourage political actors to create confusion for strategic purposes. Election workers could have been required to identify disputed mail ballots, verify voter records and determine which votes should be set aside while ballots continued to arrive.

For voters, the stakes were equally direct. A process based on an unreliable list could deprive legitimate citizens of their votes. A process applied without reliable verification could also create doubts about whether election results reflected the choices of eligible voters. By rejecting the emergency request, the court avoided requiring California officials to build a new ballot-separation procedure only days before Election Day.

The ruling therefore carries significance beyond the immediate request. It reinforces the principle that exceptional judicial relief must account for the practical effect of intervening in an active election. California remains responsible for administering its election, but the decision does not foreclose scrutiny of alleged improper voter registration.

Justice Department List Raises Accuracy Questions

The administration’s case depended heavily on a list identifying approximately 20,000 people on California’s voter rolls as likely noncitizens. According to The Guardian, the Justice Department delivered the list to election officials in Los Angeles and Sacramento on a USB drive roughly two weeks earlier, giving officials 48 hours to review it before threatening legal action.

California and Los Angeles County lawyers challenged the methodology used to compile the list. Carter agreed that the government’s description of its verification procedures was too vague and said he could not conclude that the process was credible. His decision reflected concerns previously raised by the state and county that the list contained errors or insufficiently supported conclusions.

Carter also pointed to the administration’s experience in Nevada as an example of the risks involved. NBC News reported that the Department of Homeland Security initially identified up to 15,903 registered voters as noncitizens through high-confidence matching. After manual review, that figure fell to 6,218 and then to 185. Nevada officials later confirmed that all 185 people were citizens.

The Nevada episode did not itself determine the California case, but it undercut confidence in the administration’s initial identification process. Carter used the example to explain why state officials should not be required to segregate ballots based on allegations that had not survived careful review.

California Can Continue Processing the Ballots

With the emergency request denied, the disputed mail ballots remain part of California’s normal election operation. The ruling did not require election workers to create a special category for ballots associated with the 20,000 names, nor did it direct officials to halt processing while the Justice Department pursued an appeal.

That continuity matters as California has more than 23 million registered voters and a substantial mail-in voting operation. Any review of individual voter records would require coordination among state election officials and local registrars, particularly in Los Angeles County, where a large concentration of the affected mail ballots had been sent for processing.

Still, the court’s decision did not create an unconditional endorsement of the administration’s underlying allegations. It accepted the premise that election officials must follow lawful procedures for voter registration and voting, while rejecting a rushed method that had not demonstrated adequate accuracy or transparency.

Political Context and the Midterm Stakes

The dispute unfolded with the federal government asserting a broader interest in preventing noncitizens from voting, while California officials resisted what they characterized as election interference. The dispute therefore combined two separate questions: whether improper registration should be investigated and whether federal authorities could invoke that concern to alter ballot handling immediately before an election.

Carter’s ruling sided with California on the timing and procedure of the proposed intervention. The court treated the administration’s request as an attempt to force a fundamental change in election administration without a sufficiently reliable process for identifying the affected voters.

The political timing amplified the stakes. Any decision to separate ballots creates the potential for delays, inconsistent treatment and public uncertainty. With control of both chambers of Congress at stake, the administration’s effort attracted particular attention and criticism from those who argued that an attempt to interfere with an election near its conclusion could produce broader effects than the number of ballots involved.

At the same time, California had a legitimate interest in ensuring that only eligible citizens vote. The judge’s decision did not eliminate that responsibility or grant immunity to election officials. It required the government to use a process capable of surviving legal review before courts could require states to separate votes.

What Officials and Groups Are Saying

The central position came from Carter’s decision, which described the administration’s request as inconsistent with state authority over elections and potentially disruptive to an active voting period. He questioned both the credibility of the identification method and the practical consequences for voters and election workers.

California and Los Angeles County had already warned that the Justice Department’s list was not supported by adequate evidence. Their lawyers focused on the need for reliable verification before any ballots linked to the list could be separated from ordinary election processing.

The Justice Department’s response was procedural rather than substantive. NPR reported that the federal government immediately filed notice of its intent to appeal, meaning the dispute is likely to continue while the election proceeds.

Timeline

  • Approximately October 14, 2026: The Justice Department delivered a USB drive containing the names of roughly 20,000 alleged noncitizens to election officials in Los Angeles and Sacramento, according to The Guardian.
  • October 15, 2026: The administration gave officials 48 hours to review the list and threatened to sue California if it did not agree to segregate the associated ballots.
  • Before the October 28 hearing: California and Los Angeles County challenged the list’s accuracy and the government’s verification methodology.
  • October 28, 2026: Carter denied the request for emergency relief, allowing California to continue processing the ballots under normal procedures.
  • October 28, 2026: The Justice Department filed notice that it intended to appeal the ruling.
  • November 3, 2026: Voters will decide congressional control and other races across the country.

Frequently Asked Questions

Did the judge rule that every person on the list is a U.S. citizen?

No. The ruling rejected the request to segregate the ballots and questioned the reliability of the process used to identify the people on the list. It did not decide that everyone on the list was a citizen.

Why did the court reject the administration’s request?

Carter concluded that the request conflicted with longstanding constitutional principles giving states authority over elections. He also found that the government had not described a sufficiently credible verification process and that intervening so close to Election Day would disrupt an election already underway.

Will California count the disputed mail-in ballots?

The court allowed California to continue processing the ballots under the state’s established procedures. It did not order election officials to set them apart or withhold them while the Justice Department prepares an appeal.

Has the Justice Department dropped the case?

No. NPR reported that the Justice Department immediately filed notice of its intent to appeal. The case therefore remains active, although the immediate demand to segregate the ballots was rejected.

What evidence did the administration use to compile its list?

Carter described the government’s description of its procedures as vague and said he could not conclude that its process was credible. The ruling particularly emphasized that the list’s accuracy had been challenged by California and Los Angeles County, as well as by the administration’s record of initially overestimating noncitizen matches in Nevada.

What Happens Next

California can continue processing the more than 20,000 disputed mail ballots under its normal procedures while the Justice Department prepares an appeal. The next phase may involve arguments over the reliability of the administration’s list, the adequacy of voter verification and whether the federal government has authority to require ballot separation in an active election.

The dispute remains important beyond the individual ballots. The case will test how courts handle election challenges filed at the last minute and whether the federal government can alter state election procedures without a stronger showing of accuracy and procedural reliability. For California and the broader midterm election, Carter’s ruling provided immediate certainty: the disputed ballots would not be segregated or withheld while the case proceeds.