DOJ Lawsuit Against California Over Mail-In Ballots: Trump’s Jail Threat, California’s Response and the Laws at Issue

The U.S. Department of Justice has sued the State of California in federal court in Los Angeles, asking a judge to stop the state from counting mail-in ballots from about 20,000 registered voters the federal government calls “likely noncitizens.” Over the weekend, the fight escalated: President Donald Trump threatened California election officials with jail time if they refuse to hold those ballots. California Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber, Attorney General Rob Bonta and Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder Dean Logan say the federal list is unverified and that they will not withhold ballots on that basis.

As of October 19, 2026, I found no court order granting the Justice Department’s requested injunction. Everything below is either an allegation in a court filing or a statement by one of the parties. Nothing has been proven or decided.

The key point: the DOJ’s claim is not a court finding that 20,000 noncitizens voted. The government says federal agencies identified registered voters who are likely noncitizens. That is different from proving each person is a noncitizen, received a ballot, returned it or had a vote counted.

DOJ v. California Mail Ballot Lawsuit: Quick Facts

Detail	Information
Case	United States of America v. State of California, Shirley N. Weber, and Dean C. Logan, No. 2:26-cv-12025
Court	U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Los Angeles)
Filed	Thursday, October 15, 2026
Plaintiff	United States, through the Department of Justice
Defendants	State of California; Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber; Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder Dean C. Logan
Voters at issue	About 20,000 registered voters the DOJ calls “likely noncitizens”
Relief requested	Preliminary and permanent injunctions blocking tabulation of those voters’ mail ballots until citizenship is verified
Election date	November 3, 2026
Status	Pending; no order granting the injunction found through October 19, 2026

What Did Trump Say About Jailing California Election Officials?

According to Reuters, Acting Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter sent a follow-up letter on October 16 to Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber and Los Angeles County officials. The letter warned that officials could face criminal liability as accomplices if they knowingly allowed ballots from ineligible noncitizens to be counted. Trump shared the warning and wrote that the officials would go to jail for a long period of time.

Three points matter for readers:

• A social media post is not a court order, an indictment or a finding that any California official broke the law.
• Criminal liability would require prosecutors to prove every element of an actual offense, including knowledge and intent. Aiding and abetting liability under 18 U.S.C. § 2 requires that the person knowingly helped commit an underlying federal crime.
• No charge or conviction of any California or Los Angeles County official arising from this dispute was identified in the sources I reviewed.

What Does the DOJ Lawsuit Against California Say?

The Justice Department asks the court to bar California from counting mail ballots from voters on a federal list until their citizenship is determined. In its words, it wants the court to enjoin California from presently tabulating vote-by-mail ballots from likely noncitizens in the upcoming federal election until each voter’s citizenship status can be determined. The department says it is not asking to remove anyone from the voter rolls or cancel any ballot, only to have the flagged ballots held aside.

The complaint argues that the federal government sought to work collaboratively with California, and that California made no serious effort to do so, even though the state mails a ballot to every registered voter. DOJ lawyers say this has made it nearly impossible to investigate and enforce federal law.

The complaint’s legal theory rests on the Supremacy Clause and the federal ban on noncitizen voting in federal elections. Roll Call reported that the complaint does not cite a statute requiring voters to prove citizenship the way the DOJ is asking.

How the DOJ Says It Built the List of 20,000 Voters

According to the complaint as described in news coverage, the Department of Homeland Security compared voter rolls to its own internal databases and assigned each match a confidence level. Immigration and Customs Enforcement then checked high-confidence matches against naturalization and parental citizenship records, plus State Department and Social Security data. The list was delivered to California on a password-protected thumb drive.

The numbers have shifted. Over the summer, the federal government claimed California had about 190,000 noncitizens on its rolls. DHS said on Friday, October 16, that 190,000 remains its figure for potential noncitizen voters and that 20,000 is the subset manually verified so far. A DOJ spokesperson told Newsweek the number “can and will go up” and did not say manual verification had definitively established noncitizen status.

Twenty thousand voters is roughly 0.086% of California’s approximately 23.2 million registered voters.

How Did the DOJ and California Reach This Point?

Date	Event
October 9, 2026	U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan (D.D.C.) rules against the DOJ’s effort to obtain states’ unredacted voter rolls and share them with DHS
October 13, 2026	McCotter sends letters to Weber and Logan giving them 48 hours to act on the list
October 15, 2026	DOJ sues California in Los Angeles after the deadline passes
October 16, 2026	Weber calls the situation “an emergency of the DOJ’s creation”; McCotter sends follow-up warning of criminal liability
October 16-17, 2026	Trump threatens California officials with jail
October 19, 2026	DOJ’s response to the voting rights groups’ hearing request is due in Washington, D.C.
November 3, 2026	Election Day

The October 13 letters demanded that returned ballots from listed voters be set aside, that ballots not yet sent to listed voters be held back, and that no listed ballots be counted until citizenship was verified.

What Is the Justice Department’s Position?

Attorney General Todd Blanche said in announcing the lawsuit that state-facilitated voter fraud is unacceptable. Bill Essayli, first assistant U.S. attorney for the Central District of California, said California officials were given a chance to remove noncitizens and refused. Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin called the number of alleged noncitizens registered in California “completely unacceptable.”

The DOJ says its goal is to protect election integrity and prevent dilution of citizens’ votes, and that its investigation used multiple data-enrichment and verification methods.

What Is California’s Position?

Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber said she will not disenfranchise thousands of people based on unsupported and likely inaccurate accusations, and said she would welcome the chance to review the evidence and methodology behind the list. She says the federal government has not provided the data needed for independent verification.

Attorney General Rob Bonta called the demands meritless and said California will not carry out the federal request to withhold ballots. He also argues the federal action conflicts with the National Voter Registration Act’s rule against systematic voter-roll changes within 90 days of a federal election.

Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder Dean Logan said his office cannot withhold ballots based solely on unverified allegations. According to Associated Press reporting, the county received a thumb drive with a handwritten note containing the password and declined to open it for information-security and privacy reasons. The county also said the list covers voters throughout California, even though Logan is the only county election official named as a defendant. A Los Angeles County registrar does not control ballot processing in the state’s other counties.

Governor Gavin Newsom called the lawsuit a desperate attempt to suppress California voters.

California also points out that voters must attest to U.S. citizenship under penalty of perjury when they register.

Which Federal and California Laws Apply to the DOJ Ballot Lawsuit?

This is the part of the case that will decide the outcome. Here are the laws the court is likely to weigh.

18 U.S.C. § 611: Federal Ban on Noncitizen Voting

Under 18 U.S.C. § 611, noncitizens generally may not vote in elections for federal office, subject to limited exceptions. The statute makes unlawful voting a crime. It does not, on its face, say that a state may not mail a ballot to a registered voter or that a court may order ballots held back. Whether this criminal statute supports the civil injunction the DOJ wants is the central legal question.

18 U.S.C. § 1015(f): False Claim of Citizenship

18 U.S.C. § 1015(f) makes it a federal crime to knowingly make a false claim of U.S. citizenship in order to register to vote or to vote in a federal, state or local election. This matters because California’s registration process requires a citizenship attestation. A voter who falsely attested faces personal criminal exposure, while a voter who was wrongly flagged by a database match has done nothing wrong.

The Supremacy Clause (U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2)

The DOJ argues California’s handling of the flagged ballots is preempted because it frustrates enforcement of the federal ban on noncitizen voting. Under the Supremacy Clause, valid federal law overrides conflicting state law. California’s answer is that no federal law requires or authorizes the court to order the hold the DOJ is requesting.

The Elections Clause (U.S. Const. art. I, § 4, cl. 1)

The Elections Clause gives states the primary role in setting the “times, places and manner” of federal elections, with Congress able to alter those rules. Election law scholar Richard Hasen told Reuters the federal government has no authority to tell a state which ballots it may send or must not count. Expect California to lean heavily on this clause.

National Voter Registration Act, 52 U.S.C. § 20507

Under 52 U.S.C. § 20507(c)(2)(A), states must complete any systematic program to remove ineligible voters from registration lists at least 90 days before a federal election. For the November 3, 2026 election, that window began August 5, 2026. California argues the DOJ’s demand runs into this rule.

The DOJ’s likely counter is that it is asking the court to pause tabulation of specific ballots, not to delete anyone from the registration rolls. Whether the 90-day rule reaches that remedy is unresolved. 52 U.S.C. § 20507(b) also requires that list maintenance be uniform, nondiscriminatory and consistent with the Voting Rights Act, which gives voters a further argument if the federal matching process is shown to be unreliable.

NVRA Enforcement, 52 U.S.C. § 20510

52 U.S.C. § 20510 lets the Attorney General bring civil actions to enforce the NVRA. The DOJ’s complaint, as reported, centers on the Supremacy Clause and the noncitizen voting ban, so a court may ask which statute actually gives the United States a cause of action here.

Help America Vote Act, 52 U.S.C. § 21083

The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) requires each state to keep a computerized statewide voter registration list and to remove ineligible voters under the NVRA’s rules. 52 U.S.C. § 21111 allows the Attorney General to enforce HAVA’s minimum requirements. Courts often look at HAVA alongside the NVRA when the U.S. challenges how a state maintains its rolls.

California Law

California limits voter eligibility to U.S. citizens under Cal. Elec. Code § 2101 and the California Constitution, art. II, § 2. Under Cal. Elec. Code § 3000.5, the state mails a ballot to every active registered voter. The DOJ is attacking how that system handles the flagged voters, not the existence of universal mail voting.

The Legal Standard for an Injunction

To win a preliminary injunction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, the DOJ must show it is likely to succeed on the merits, that it will suffer irreparable harm without relief, and that the balance of equities and the public interest favor an injunction. That is the test from Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008).

Courts also apply the Purcell principle, from Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006), which counsels against federal court orders that change election rules close to an election. With ballots already mailed and Election Day on November 3, California is expected to argue this principle weighs against the DOJ.

Immigration Consequences for Noncitizens Who Vote Unlawfully

Separate from this lawsuit, federal immigration law treats unlawful voting by a noncitizen as a ground of deportability (8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(6)) and inadmissibility (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(10)(D)). These provisions apply to individuals, not to the state, and they require proof that a specific person actually voted unlawfully.

What Is the Related Court Fight in Washington, D.C.?

On October 9, Judge Sparkle Sooknanan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled against the DOJ’s yearlong effort to obtain states’ unredacted voter rolls and share them with DHS to identify possible noncitizens. The DOJ said it plans to appeal.

Voting rights groups, including Common Cause and CREW, argue the California demands may violate that order and have asked for a hearing. The judge ordered the DOJ to respond by Monday, October 19. A DOJ attorney wrote that the order does not reach other methods of identifying possible noncitizens and that DHS used a public voter roll, not the SAVE system, for the California list.

Separately, a coalition including the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA) asked a judge for a temporary restraining order to keep the federal government from pressuring California officials to block ballot delivery. As of the latest reporting I found, that request had not been decided.

States Newsroom reported that the DOJ has lost 23 similar lawsuits over state voter data, including its attempt to get California’s unredacted voter roll.

For background on that earlier fight, read Judge Blocks DOJ Voter-Roll Checks What Voters Need To Know. It involved broader voter-data demands and is a different case from the current effort to stop tabulation of specific ballots.

Has a Judge Ordered California to Stop Counting the Ballots?

No. Through October 19, 2026, I found no order granting the requested injunction. The DOJ’s filing does not, by itself, require California to set aside ballots, remove registrations or demand citizenship documents from voters. A court would have to issue an order first. Reporting as of about October 16 listed no hearing date for the main case.

What Should California Voters Do While the Case Is Pending?

The lawsuit does not cancel mail ballots and does not require California voters to submit citizenship documents. Eligible voters should follow normal election instructions, check their registration and ballot status through the California Secretary of State or their county elections office, and respond to any individual notice from election officials.

Registration, receiving a ballot, returning a ballot and having a ballot counted are four separate facts. The DOJ’s list does not establish that any listed person voted.

For the underlying eligibility rules, see Can Non-Citizens Vote In California? What The Law Says. For the wider picture, see Voting Rules and Legal Challenges Ahead of the 2026 Midterms, The Complete Picture.

What Happens Next in United States v. California?

Watch for these developments:

1. A motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction in the Los Angeles case, and the judge’s assignment and schedule.
2. California’s formal response, which will likely raise the Elections Clause, the NVRA 90-day rule, the lack of a cause of action and the Purcell principle.
3. The DOJ’s October 19 filing and any hearing before Judge Sooknanan in Washington, D.C.
4. A ruling on the CHIRLA coalition’s restraining order request.
5. The DOJ’s appeal of the October 9 voter-roll ruling.

This is a government lawsuit about voter eligibility and ballot tabulation. It is not a class action or a consumer compensation case, so there is no settlement fund, claim form or payment deadline.

DOJ Lawsuit Against California Mail Ballots: Frequently Asked Questions

What is the DOJ suing California over?

 The Justice Department wants a federal judge to stop California from counting mail ballots from about 20,000 registered voters it says are likely noncitizens, until their citizenship is verified.

Did Trump threaten to jail California election officials?

 Reuters reported that Trump shared a Justice Department warning of criminal liability for California and Los Angeles County officials and wrote that they would go to jail. It is a threat, not a charge or a court order.

Has a judge ruled on the DOJ v. California lawsuit?

 No order granting the injunction was found through October 19, 2026.

Are the 20,000 voters confirmed noncitizens?

 No. The figure is the DOJ’s allegation. DHS says 20,000 is a subset that has been manually verified so far, and California says it has not seen the data or methodology.

Is the DOJ asking California to remove voters from the rolls?

 The department says no. It asks only that flagged ballots be set aside until citizenship is verified.

Can noncitizens legally vote in California federal elections?

 No. 18 U.S.C. § 611 bars noncitizens from voting in federal elections, and California limits voter eligibility to U.S. citizens.

Why does California cite the 90-day rule? 

Under 52 U.S.C. § 20507(c)(2)(A), systematic list-maintenance programs must end 90 days before a federal election. For the November 3, 2026 election, that period began August 5.

Is this a class action?

 No. It is a civil lawsuit by the United States against the State of California, Secretary of State Weber and Registrar-Recorder Logan.

Sources

1. Reuters, “Trump threatens California officials with imprisonment over stance on mail ballots,” October 17, 2026. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-threatens-california-officials-with-imprisonment-over-stance-mail-ballots-2026-10-17/
2. U.S. Department of Justice, complaint in United States v. California, No. 2:26-cv-12025, filed October 15, 2026. https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1466286/dl?inline
3. U.S. Department of Justice, “Justice Department Sues State of California over Voter List,” October 15, 2026. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-state-california-over-voter-list
4. Associated Press, “Trump administration sues California over mail-in ballots for alleged noncitizens,” October 15-16, 2026. https://apnews.com/article/california-justice-department-voting-noncitizens-lawsuit-12c62cf12a7db6480c60975b6dea49b8
5. Jonathan Shorman, States Newsroom, “Judge puts Trump DOJ on the clock over last-minute California voter ambush,” October 17, 2026. https://www.rawstory.com/judge-puts-trump-doj-on-the-clock-over-last-minute-california-voter-ambush/
6. Roll Call, “DOJ sues California over mail ballots, alleging they were sent to noncitizens,” October 15, 2026. https://rollcall.com/2026/10/15/doj-sues-california-alleging-noncitizen-ballots/
7. CNBC, “U.S. sues California in fight over checking citizenship of mail voters,” October 15, 2026. https://www.cnbc.com/2026/10/15/california-mail-ballots-voting-lawsuit.html
8. NPR, “DOJ sues California to block the counting of mail-in ballots from alleged noncitizens,” October 16, 2026. https://www.npr.org/2026/10/16/nx-s1-6003976/doj-sues-california-to-block-the-counting-of-mail-in-ballots-from-alleged-noncitizens
9. PBS NewsHour, “Trump administration sues California to block counting of alleged noncitizen mail ballots.” https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-administration-sues-california-to-block-counting-of-alleged-noncitizen-mail-ballots
10. Newsweek, “How Trump DOJ Flagged 20,000 California Voters as Likely Noncitizens.” https://www.newsweek.com/trump-doj-california-voters-methodology-lawsuit-12576337
11. San Francisco Chronicle, “Election lawyers question DOJ’s legal theory in California ballot lawsuit,” October 17, 2026. https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/doj-california-ballot-lawsuit-election-22479436.php
12. 18 U.S.C. § 611, https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section611
13. 52 U.S.C. § 20507, https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title52-section20507

This article is general information, not legal advice. I am a legal content researcher, not an attorney. The story is moving fast and details may change.

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, legal content researcher and founder of AllAboutLawyer.com. All facts verified against the Justice Department’s complaint and press release and reporting by the Associated Press and Reuters, as of October 19, 2026. Last Updated: October 19, 2026.