Supreme Court Rejects Trump's Bid To Block 20,000 California Ballots

No. At least for this election, the Trump administration could not force California to separate 20,000 ballots, and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to step in.

The decision on November 2, 2026, the day before Election Day, left in place the rulings of a federal district judge and a 2-1 Ninth Circuit panel that had already refused the Justice Department’s demand.

But the Court did not decide that all 20,000 people are citizens, and it did not decide that noncitizens may vote. It denied an emergency request. That difference is the most important thing to understand about this case.

Quick Facts

Question	Answer
What did the Supreme Court do?	On November 2, 2026, it denied the Trump administration’s emergency request to make California set aside about 20,000 mail ballots.
Who asked for it?	The U.S. Department of Justice (Trump administration).
Which state is involved?	California. California mails a ballot to all of its roughly 23 million registered voters.
Did the Court explain its reasoning?	No. The order was brief and unsigned, with no written explanation.
Did any justice publicly dissent?	No public dissent was noted.
Why did the federal government say it needed this?	It said the 20,000 people on California’s rolls were likely noncitizens, who cannot vote in federal elections.
Why did courts reject it?	The federal list had a high error rate (a DOJ lawyer called that “a fair statement” in court), the timing was extremely late, and the remedy risked disenfranchising eligible citizens.
Were the 20,000 people proven to be noncitizens?	No.
Does this mean noncitizen voting is legal?	No. It is a federal crime under 18 U.S.C. § 611, with exceptions.
Is the whole case over?	No. This was an emergency order. The underlying lawsuits and appeals can continue.
Can DOJ still prosecute individual noncitizen voters?	Yes.
Are the ballots being counted?	Yes, under California’s normal procedures.

What Did the Trump Administration Want?

The Justice Department said it had identified about 20,000 people on California’s voter rolls whom federal data suggested were likely noncitizens. It argued that California was mailing them ballots and that some might be counted in a federal election.

It asked the courts to order California and local officials to:

Segregate (set aside) the ballots associated with people on the federal list, and
Hold them uncounted until citizenship could be verified.

The administration described this as a modest, temporary step, not an order to destroy ballots. It said ballots from verified citizens could still be counted afterward. It also argued that once ballots are separated from their envelopes and mixed with others, a bad vote cannot be pulled back, which it called “dilution” of lawful votes.

The Justice Department relied mainly on 18 U.S.C. § 611, the federal law that makes it a crime for noncitizens to vote in federal elections.

Timeline: How the Case Reached the Supreme Court

Date	What happened
Early October 2026	California voting began. Every registered voter is mailed a ballot.
Mid-October	DOJ sued California election officials. It said they failed to meet a 48-hour deadline to review the 20,000-name list, and asked for the ballots to be set aside.
Wednesday, October 28	U.S. District Judge David O. Carter denied the request, after more than 3.7 million Californians had already voted. He warned the move would “wreak havoc.”
Late October	A 2-1 Ninth Circuit panel upheld his order. Two judges (one Trump appointee, one Biden appointee) were in the majority, and the third, also a Trump appointee, dissented.
Monday, November 2	DOJ asked the Supreme Court for emergency relief. The Court denied it the same day.
Monday, November 2	Separately, in Washington, D.C., Chief Judge James Boasberg ruled that the administration’s last-minute demands on California election officials likely violated the Constitution’s Elections Clause.
Tuesday, November 3	Election Day.

The Justice Department also made a similar request about a smaller number of voters in Washington state, and a separate lawsuit in Alaska concerns certification of a Senate race. Those matters are separate from the California order.

What Did the Supreme Court Actually Decide?

The Court denied the government’s emergency application for an injunction. It issued no opinion, which is common in emergency-docket decisions, and no justice publicly dissented.

What is an emergency injunction?

An injunction is a court order requiring someone to do something or stop doing something. Here the government wanted the Supreme Court to order California to hold the challenged ballots aside while the appeal continued.

At the Supreme Court, an injunction pending appeal is a demanding request. The applicant generally must show a strong likelihood of winning, irreparable harm without relief, and that the balance of harms and the public interest favor relief. For an injunction (as opposed to a stay of a lower-court order), the Court has said the applicant’s right to relief must be “indisputably clear.” (See Respect Maine PAC v. McKee, 562 U.S. 996 (2010).)

What denial does and does not mean

It means	It does not mean
The Court refused to order California to segregate the ballots now.	The Court ruled that the 20,000 people are citizens.
The lower-court rulings stay in place.	The Court ruled that noncitizens may vote.
California continues counting under its normal procedures.	The Court ruled on the final merits of the lawsuit.
Last-minute federal changes to state ballot handling face a high bar.	DOJ can no longer investigate or prosecute noncitizen voting.

An unexplained emergency order does not set a detailed precedent. It tells us the outcome, not the legal reasoning.

Why Did the Lower Courts Refuse?

1. The federal list was unreliable

In court, a DOJ lawyer agreed it was “a fair statement” that the data had a high error rate and said the government wanted local registrars to help verify voters. A DOJ official publicly said he was highly confident the people on the list were not entitled to vote, but later conceded there may be errors.

2. The timing was extremely late

By late October, millions of ballots had been returned, and more than 500,000 had already been processed, meaning their envelopes were verified and the ballots separated for counting. Los Angeles County officials testified that matching those ballots back to individual voters would be virtually impossible.

3. The law DOJ cited does not give this power

Judge Carter wrote that 18 U.S.C. § 611 makes illegal voting by noncitizens a crime but does not authorize the federal government to order states to segregate ballots or halt processing.

4. The remedy would likely violate the NVRA

He also found the request would likely conflict with the National Voter Registration Act’s 90-day rule (explained below).

5. The government could already enforce the law

Carter pointed out that prosecutors had shown they could enforce the law through individual cases, citing the arrest of 28 noncitizens accused of illegally registering or voting in California.

6. Harm that cannot be undone

Carter wrote that eroded trust in democracy is irreparable and that once a vote is segregated, lasting harm has occurred.

7. The Elections Clause

In the separate Washington, D.C. case, Judge Boasberg found the executive branch had likely violated the Elections Clause, which commits authority over election rules to the states and Congress.

Another federal judge, Trina Thompson, also had an order in place barring the administration from threatening to prosecute election workers who let potentially ineligible voters cast ballots. That is a separate ruling from the Supreme Court order and was the subject of its own hearing on November 2.

Can Trump Force California to Throw Away 20,000 Ballots? What the Supreme Court Just Decided

The Law Behind the Dispute

1. Who runs elections? The Elections Clause

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 says the “Times, Places and Manner” of holding congressional elections are set by each state’s legislature, but Congress may make or alter those rules. The Constitution does not give the president a direct role.

That is why the federal government must point to an act of Congress to justify telling a state how to handle ballots. Courts look at whether a federal statute actually authorizes the requested action.

Related cases: In Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, 570 U.S. 1 (2013), the Supreme Court held that states, not the federal government, set voter qualifications, and that federal election statutes must be read carefully against state authority.

2. Noncitizen voting is a federal crime: 18 U.S.C. § 611

Section 611 makes it a crime for a noncitizen to vote in a federal election, with narrow exceptions. The maximum penalty is one year in prison (and a fine) for most violations.

Related provisions:

18 U.S.C. § 1015(f): False claims of U.S. citizenship in order to register or vote are a federal crime.
8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii) and § 1227(a)(3)(D): Falsely claiming citizenship to vote can make a noncitizen inadmissible or deportable.
52 U.S.C. § 20511: Federal law also criminalizes fraudulent voter registration and voting in federal elections.

The key legal point is that § 611 punishes individuals after the fact. It does not create a power to freeze or segregate ballots during counting.

3. The NVRA 90-day rule: 52 U.S.C. § 20507(c)(2)(A)

The National Voter Registration Act requires states to complete any systematic program to remove ineligible voters from the rolls at least 90 days before a federal election. Within that window, states generally cannot run large-scale, list-based purges.

Related case: In Arcia v. Florida Secretary of State, 772 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir. 2014), the Eleventh Circuit held that a systematic removal program carried out within the 90 days violated the NVRA, even when aimed at noncitizens, though individualized removals based on specific evidence are treated differently.

The DOJ list was a systematic, list-based effort, which is why Judge Carter found the requested remedy likely conflicted with this rule.

4. Help America Vote Act (HAVA)

52 U.S.C. § 21083 requires each state to keep a computerized statewide voter list and to verify registration information (such as a driver’s license or Social Security number). 52 U.S.C. § 21082 provides provisional ballots so that a voter whose eligibility is questioned can still cast a ballot that is checked later. Citizenship questions are normally handled through these state-run tools, not by a federal list imposed days before an election.

5. Due process and equal protection

Treating registered voters differently based on an error-prone list, without notice or a chance to respond, raises due-process concerns. Setting aside ballots that are already cast also risks disenfranchising eligible citizens who share names or data with someone else.

6. The Purcell principle

In Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006), the Supreme Court cautioned that federal courts should generally not change election rules close to an election, because that can confuse voters and officials. Courts cite Purcell most often to stop court-ordered changes made late in the process. In this case the late timing weighed against granting the federal government’s request.

Can the Federal Government Stop Ballots From Being Counted?

Generally, no, not on its own. States administer elections under their own laws and the federal government’s power comes from Congress. A federal agency can investigate, bring lawsuits and prosecute crimes, but it cannot simply order local officials to stop counting ballots unless a law or a court order allows it.

Can States Refuse Federal Demands?

States must follow valid federal law, but a request is not the same as a legal command. When the demand is not backed by a statute or court order, states may decline, and courts then decide whether the federal government has a legal right to what it is asking. In this case, every court that reached the question so far sided with California.

Who Decides Whether a Voter Is Eligible?

Primarily state and local election officials, under state law and subject to federal rules. Citizenship questions are typically addressed through:

the registration process, in which applicants swear under penalty of perjury that they are citizens,
voter-list maintenance programs that follow the NVRA’s timing and notice rules,
individualized challenges with notice and a chance to respond,
provisional ballots, and
criminal investigations and prosecutions after the fact.

How Common Is Noncitizen Voting?

Noncitizen voting is illegal and, according to multiple studies and audits, rare. At the same time, keeping voter rolls accurate is a legitimate government interest, and federal prosecutors do bring cases. The dispute in this case was not whether noncitizen voting is illegal, but whether the federal government may use an error-prone list to change ballot counting in the middle of an election.

What Happens Next?

California keeps counting. Ballots continue to be processed and tallied under state procedures. Counties have roughly a month to certify results, and the Secretary of State certifies afterward.
The lawsuits are not necessarily over. The Supreme Court order was on an emergency application. The underlying case, the Boasberg ruling and other cases can continue in the lower courts.
DOJ can still prosecute individuals. Individual noncitizen-voting prosecutions can go forward under § 611 and related laws.
Post-election challenges are possible. Election contests and recounts follow state procedures.
Other states. Similar federal demands, such as the request in Washington state, are being handled in their own courts.

Frequently Asked Questions

Did the Supreme Court say the 20,000 people are noncitizens or citizens?

Neither. It only refused the government’s emergency request. The Court gave no explanation.

Did the Supreme Court make noncitizen voting legal?

No. Voting in a federal election as a noncitizen remains a federal crime under 18 U.S.C. § 611, with limited exceptions.

Will the 20,000 ballots be counted?

California is processing and counting ballots under its normal rules. Ballots from voters whose eligibility is established under state law are counted. The Supreme Court order did not require the state to separate any ballots.

Why did the Court reject the request so quickly?

It did not explain. The lower courts had pointed to an unreliable list, the late timing, the impracticality of pulling ballots that were already processed, and the lack of legal authority in the statute DOJ cited.

Can the president order a state to stop counting ballots?

Not on his own authority. Elections are run by states under the Elections Clause, subject to laws passed by Congress.

What is the NVRA 90-day rule?

It requires systematic voter-roll removal programs to be finished at least 90 days before a federal election.

Can DOJ still go after noncitizens who vote?

Yes. DOJ can investigate and prosecute individual cases. Carter’s ruling noted that prosecutors had already charged 28 people in California.

Does the Court’s order mean the DOJ lost the case?

Not entirely. It lost this emergency request. The broader litigation and appeals may continue.

Is it legal for a noncitizen to vote in a local or state election?

Federal law bars noncitizen voting in federal elections. Voting in state and local elections is governed by state and local law, and in most places noncitizens cannot vote. California law does not allow noncitizens to vote in state elections.

Who is California’s chief election official?

The Secretary of State, Shirley Weber. Los Angeles County’s election is run by the county Registrar-Recorder.

Where can I check my own voter registration?

Use your state or county election office’s official lookup tool. In California, that is the Secretary of State’s voter registration status page.

Final Takeaway

The Supreme Court’s refusal to intervene means the Trump administration’s effort to force California to set aside about 20,000 ballots failed for this election. The courts reached that result for several reasons: the federal list was unreliable, the request came when ballots were already being counted, the cited law did not authorize the remedy, and states and Congress, not the president, hold the power over election rules.

What the decision does not do is settle whether those individuals are eligible, legalize noncitizen voting, or stop prosecutions. Those questions remain with state election officials, the courts and federal prosecutors.

This article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. AllAboutLawyer.com is an independent U.S. legal information website, not a law firm.

Sources and Legal Authorities

Current reporting

Statutes

18 U.S.C. § 611 (Voting by aliens) and § 1015(f) (False claim of citizenship to vote)
52 U.S.C. § 20507 (National Voter Registration Act, including the 90-day provision) and § 20511
52 U.S.C. §§ 21082 and 21083 (Help America Vote Act)
8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii) and 1227(a)(3)(D)

Constitution and cases

U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 (Elections Clause)
Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006)
Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., 570 U.S. 1 (2013)
Arcia v. Florida Secretary of State, 772 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir. 2014)
Respect Maine PAC v. McKee, 562 U.S. 996 (2010)

About the Author

Israr Ahmad is a legal content researcher with 4+ years of experience covering class action settlements and consumer rights cases. He has researched and published coverage of 2,500+ settlements using verified court records, settlement administrator filings, and government sources. Learn more about Israr.