Skip to content
OpenDocket

Can U.S. officials warn election workers of prosecution over ballots?

Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO v. United States Department of Justice

Follow

At a glance

Unions and civil rights groups say U.S. officials threaten election workers with prosecution over ballots DOJ flagged. A judge blocked the threats for now; the full Ninth Circuit is weighing whether to pause it.

  1. What happened · 6 steps
    1. Federal letters target flagged ballotsOct 2026

      The groups say DOJ asked officials to set aside about 20,000 California ballots and warned workers of prosecution.

    2. Unions and civil rights groups sueOct 29, 2026

      SEIU, AFSCME, LULAC, and the NAACP sue under the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution.

    3. Judge blocks the threats for nowOct 30, 2026

      Judge Thompson issued a restraining order barring ballot-hold demands and threats of prosecution.

    4. Judge refuses to pause her orderNov 2, 2026

      She denied the government's stay request and, with both sides' consent, set the order to end Nov 13.

    5. Appeals panel pauses the orderNov 2, 2026

      A 2-1 Ninth Circuit panel found the government likely to win and paused the restraining order.

    6. Full Ninth Circuit vacates the pauseNov 2, 2026

      A majority of active judges voted to rehear the stay request, vacating the panel's order that night.

  2. Threats of prosecution are blocked for now

    The restraining order is in force while the full Ninth Circuit reconsiders the government's request to pause it.

  3. Still open

    Whether the full Ninth Circuit pauses the order, and whether the judge grants a preliminary injunction after the Nov 13 hearing.

Where it stands

Full-court rehearing

The full court vacates the panel's stay and will rehear the request. · Nov 2, 2026

A restraining order blocks the threats for now, and the full Ninth Circuit is reconsidering whether to pause it.

Follow what's happening

  1. Suit filed

    Oct 29, 2026

    Unions and civil rights groups sue DOJ and Homeland Security.

  2. Restraining order

    Oct 30, 2026

    Judge Thompson bars the threats and ballot-hold demands for now.

  3. Stay request, trial court

    Nov 2, 2026

    The judge refuses to pause her order and sets it to end Nov 13.

  4. Ninth Circuit panel stay

    Nov 2, 2026

    A 2-1 panel pauses the restraining order.

  5. Full-court rehearing

    Nov 2, 2026

    The full court vacates the panel's stay and will rehear the request.

The parties

SEIU, AFSCME, LULAC, and NAACP

Plaintiffs

Two labor unions and two civil rights groups

Wants

End threats to prosecute election workers

Key arguments

  • The threats violate the Voting Rights Act

    Likely to succeed, for now. Interim ruling. The trial judge found a likely violation of the law's ban on intimidating people who help others vote; a Ninth Circuit panel disagreed, but its order was vacated

  • States, not federal officials, run elections

    Likely to succeed, for now. Interim ruling. The judge found the threats likely exceed federal power under the Elections Clause and the Tenth Amendment

  • The actions also break agency law and due process

    Likely to succeed, for now. Interim ruling. Added in the judge's Nov 2 order after the hearing; not addressed in the original restraining order

Represented by

Altshuler Berzon LLP; Democracy Defenders Fund

Justice Department and Homeland Security

Defendants

Federal agencies and their heads, Blanche and Mullin

Wants

Freedom to warn officials and seek ballot holds

Key arguments

  • The Voting Rights Act gives the groups no way to sue

    Panel agreed; order vacated. A Ninth Circuit panel found this likely right, but the full court vacated that order to rehear the stay request

  • Warning officials about federal law is its job

    Panel agreed; order vacated. The panel called the letters and investigations core executive functions; that order is vacated

  • Its requests don't override state election power

    Rejected for now. Interim ruling. The trial judge found an Elections Clause violation likely; the vacated panel order had sided with the government

  • The restraining order can be appealed now

    Courts split; unresolved. The trial judge called the appeal premature; the vacated panel order treated it as an appealable injunction

Represented by

U.S. Department of Justice

Supporting plaintiffs: Justice Connection

Content snapshot as of .