A federal judge in Los Angeles has rejected the Justice Department's bid to set aside more than 20,000 California ballots in the final days before the November 3 midterm elections, dealing the Trump administration its latest courtroom defeat in its push to police state voter rolls. The California ballots ruling, handed down on Wednesday by U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, leaves California's existing ballot-counting procedures in place while voting is already underway across the nation's most populous state.

Carter refused the department's request for a temporary restraining order that would have forced California to segregate and withhold ballots from voters on a federal list of people the administration alleges are likely noncitizens. In a sharply worded order, the judge said the government had not shown it was likely to win the case, had manufactured its own emergency by waiting until the eve of the election, and had threatened county election workers who kept counting ballots.

Key Points

• Judge David O. Carter on Wednesday rejected the Justice Department's request for a temporary restraining order covering more than 20,000 California ballots.
• Carter found the department likely lacks standing and a cause of action, and said its requested remedy would likely violate several federal voting laws.
• The judge condemned federal threats against California election workers, writing: "These threats must stop."
• California and Los Angeles County challenged the reliability of the federal list; a county sample of 200 names found nearly 40% with records indicating they were born in the United States.
• The ruling follows a 2-1 Ninth Circuit decision on Monday dismissing the department's emergency appeal as premature.

What Happened

The Justice Department sued California and Los Angeles County on October 15, arguing that state officials were facilitating unlawful noncitizen voting by failing to verify the citizenship of people on a federal list before counting their ballots. The department asked the court to order officials to set aside any mail ballots from people on the list until their citizenship could be confirmed.

Carter heard the request at a high-profile, three-hour hearing in Los Angeles on Tuesday afternoon. He announced he would rule on Wednesday, and he did — against the department, on nearly every front. The judge concluded the government was unlikely to succeed on the merits, that the federal criminal ban on noncitizen voting does not give the Justice Department authority to override California's ballot-processing rules, and that the late intervention would do more harm than good.

"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," Carter wrote. "In bringing this lawsuit, the Executive would have this Court believe that it reigns as a sole sovereign. But California and its people are sovereign, too."

He was equally blunt about the timing. The department's eleventh-hour predicament, Carter wrote, was "solely due to its own neglect." And he closed with a warning about what granting the request would have meant: "The Executive's requested relief would wreak havoc and disrupt the election that is already underway, create a chilling effect on election workers and voters alike, and discount the votes of United States citizens. This Court declines to be a party to such process."

Background and Context

The dispute began in July, when the Department of Homeland Security said it had identified 190,832 potential noncitizen voters on California's rolls. By October, that figure had been narrowed to a list of about 20,000 names, which federal officials sent to the Los Angeles County clerk on a password-protected thumb drive, with instructions to hold or set aside ballots from people on it until citizenship could be verified.

California officials pushed back immediately. They said the state's safeguards against noncitizen voting are robust, that the federal assertions relied on what the state's lawyer, Anne Bellows, called "mysterious database methods," and that complying would risk disenfranchising eligible voters. Los Angeles County's preliminary review of 200 people on the list appeared to support that concern: nearly 40% had records indicating they were born in the United States, and more than 70% of the sample had no voting history at all.

The department escalated rather than retreating. On October 16 it warned California election officials they could face criminal liability if they counted ballots from flagged voters. At Tuesday's hearing, Carter told government lawyers that any threats against state and county election employees should cease immediately, and he raised the possibility of appointing a special master to independently examine the list and California's claim that counties cannot practically segregate the ballots.

The department also tried to leapfrog the district court altogether, filing an unusual appeal before Carter had even held his hearing and arguing that his failure to meet a requested deadline amounted to a "constructive denial." On Monday, a divided Ninth Circuit panel dismissed that emergency appeal 2-1 as premature. Two of the three judges — including one appointed by President Donald Trump — wrote separately that they would have rejected the department's request on the merits even if the court had jurisdiction, previewing many of the problems Carter identified on Wednesday.

California is a universal vote-by-mail state with 23 million registered voters as of December 2025, and it holds 52 seats in the House of Representatives — more than any other state. Election officials there have already processed hundreds of thousands of ballots, and several congressional races on the ballot are competitive. The Justice Department did not indicate how many of the more than 20,000 people it flagged had actually submitted a mail ballot.

California Ballots Ruling: Why the Judge Said No

Carter's reasoning rested on several independent pillars, any one of which would have been enough to deny emergency relief. First, he found the department likely lacks standing and a cause of action to bring this kind of suit — the federal government cannot simply sue a state into adopting its preferred election procedures. Second, he held that the criminal prohibition on voting by noncitizens is a tool for prosecuting individuals, not a licence to rewrite a state's ballot-processing rules mid-election.

Third, the judge found the requested remedy would likely violate several federal voting laws, including protections designed to stop last-minute changes to election rules while voting is underway. Bellows made that point at the hearing, noting that the Supreme Court has repeatedly said federal courts should not interfere to change the rules under which an election is held when the election is close at hand — a principle that applies, she argued, "with even more force when the election is ongoing."

Carter also rejected the department's claim of an emergency. The government had known about the list for months, yet waited until weeks before the election to demand a court-ordered overhaul of how California counts votes. And he pointed to the remedy the government already has: criminal prosecution. "You've got a remedy, for goodness sake," he told Justice Department lawyer Bilal Essayli at the hearing. "Go out and indict." In his written order, Carter repeated the point — the department remains free to prosecute individual noncitizens when it has evidence they voted illegally, but it cannot substitute its preferred procedures for those enacted by Congress and California.

Finally, Carter weighed the human cost. Setting aside 20,000 ballots on the basis of an untested list, he wrote, would risk stripping the vote from citizens who had met every registration requirement. "This Court will not deprive Californians who have met the requirements for voter registration of their fundamental right because of Plaintiff's unfounded allegations," he wrote.

Reactions and Quotes

California Attorney General Rob Bonta has framed the case as a constitutional fight over who runs elections. "The U.S. Constitution gives states and Congress — not the President or the Executive Branch — the power to determine the time, place, and manner of elections," Bonta said in a statement. He added that the court's order serves as an important step in efforts to protect Californians' right to vote and the state's authority to run fair and secure elections.

At Tuesday's hearing, Bellows warned that the department's list was unreliable and that forcing counties to segregate ballots would throw the state's counting operation into chaos. "Voting is already underway in Los Angeles County," the county argued in its court filing. "Ballots have been mailed, returned and processed, and election officials are working toward fixed deadlines for counting and certification."

Essayli, arguing for the department, described the request as a narrow measure intended to ensure election integrity — simply preserving ballots until citizenship could be checked, rather than discarding anyone's vote outright. Carter was unconvinced, noting that federal prosecutors can still pursue criminal charges against anyone who votes illegally, and that unlawfully cast ballots can be removed in the weeks after Election Day, before results are certified.

The White House and the Justice Department have not yet said whether they will appeal Wednesday's ruling. President Trump has repeatedly insisted that states are not doing enough to stop voting by noncitizens, which he says is widespread, despite multiple studies and state audits showing it is rare. It is illegal for noncitizens to vote in US federal elections, and the department has charged 28 people with noncitizen registration or voting in California as part of its "Operation Protect the Vote."

Why It Matters

The ruling matters far beyond one list of 20,000 names. It is the latest setback for the Trump administration's effort to expand the federal government's role in elections ahead of the midterms, with the Republican Party fighting to retain control of both houses of Congress. Attorney General Todd Blanche has recently threatened similar California-style lawsuits targeting live ballots in "a number of states," and the administration has already sent a similar demand to Washington state, asking officials not to count ballots from 400 voters it said may not be citizens. Washington's top elections official said the timing of that request indicated it was intended to cast unfounded suspicion on election results.

Carter's order also draws a clear line on federalism. Elections in the United States are run by states, and the judge's insistence that California "and its people are sovereign, too" is likely to be quoted in every similar case the department brings. The same judge previously dismissed a Justice Department bid to force California to turn over its full voter registration list, and the department has sued 30 states that refused to turn over voter data, losing the majority of those cases so far.

For California voters, the practical effect is simple: nothing changes. Mail ballots continue to be counted under the procedures the state adopted long before this lawsuit, and voters on the federal list face no new barrier to having their ballots counted. For election officials, the order removes — for now — the threat of federal scrutiny for doing their jobs. And for the country, the case is a preview of the legal battles that could follow a close election on November 3, when the same arguments about flagged voters, segregated ballots and federal intervention could resurface in other states.

What Happens Next

The Justice Department can appeal Carter's ruling to the Ninth Circuit, where two judges have already signalled scepticism about the department's position — though their earlier opinions are not binding on any future appeal. The underlying lawsuit continues in Carter's court, and the judge's suggestion of a special master could still lead to an independent review of the federal list, long after the immediate emergency has passed.

Meanwhile, voting continues. Early voting in California runs through Election Day on November 3, and officials will keep processing mail ballots under the state's existing rules. Any ballots the department believes were cast unlawfully can still be challenged through criminal prosecution, and unlawfully cast votes can be removed before results are certified. What the department cannot do, after Wednesday's ruling, is force California to rewrite its counting rules in the middle of the election.

Related coverage on US News Pulse: Trump's $1 million voter-fraud reward, DOJ charges over illegal voting in five states, and the FEC cyberattack that shut down campaign-finance filings.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did Judge Carter decide? He rejected the Justice Department's request for a temporary restraining order that would have forced California to set aside ballots from more than 20,000 voters the federal government flagged as likely noncitizens.

Does this mean the flagged ballots will definitely be counted? It means California will keep counting ballots under its existing procedures. The department can still prosecute individuals if it has evidence they voted illegally, but it cannot force the state to segregate ballots mid-election.

Why did the judge say the list was unreliable? Los Angeles County's preliminary review of 200 names found nearly 40% with records indicating they were born in the United States, and more than 70% with no voting history — raising the risk that eligible citizens would be disenfranchised.

What happens to the case now? The underlying lawsuit continues, the department may appeal to the Ninth Circuit, and Carter may still appoint a special master to review the list. Voting itself continues unchanged through November 3.

Is noncitizen voting legal? No. It is illegal for noncitizens to vote in US federal elections, and studies and state audits have repeatedly found it to be rare.