Skip to content
OpenDocket

Can the U.S. make California set aside 20,000 flagged mail ballots?

United States v. State of California

Follow

At a glance

The Justice Department wants mail ballots of people on its list of likely noncitizens set aside. Lower courts refused emergency orders, citing doubts about the list and timing, and the Supreme Court also declined.

  1. What happened · 6 steps
    1. Justice Department delivers a list of namesOct 13, 2026

      It gave LA County over 20,000 "likely noncitizens" and asked it to hold their mail ballots, with a 48-hour deadline.

    2. United States sues California and LA CountyOct 15, 2026

      Minutes after the deadline, it sued, saying federal law bars sending and counting noncitizens' ballots.

    3. Early appeal thrown outOct 26, 2026

      The Ninth Circuit held it could not hear an appeal filed before the trial judge had ruled on the emergency request.

    4. Judge denies emergency orderOct 28, 2026

      Judge Carter found the U.S. unlikely to win, called the list's accuracy unproven, and said the request came too late.

    5. Appeals court declines to step inOct 30, 2026

      Over one judge's dissent, the Ninth Circuit refused to order ballots set aside while the United States appeals.

    6. Supreme Court declines to step inNov 2, 2026

      The Justices denied the United States' request to have flagged ballots kept separate during the appeal.

  2. No order to set ballots aside

    No court has ordered California or LA County to set aside the listed voters' mail ballots for the Nov 3 election.

  3. Still open

    The trial judge set a November 13 hearing on the motions to dismiss and the injunction request, with testimony on the list's reliability. The appeal of the emergency-order denial is being briefed.

Where it stands

Hearing on injunction

The court will hear the dismissal motions and the injunction request. · Nov 13, 2026

Emergency requests to set ballots aside have been denied by the district court, the Ninth Circuit, and the Supreme Court. The district court will hear the injunction request and motions to dismiss on November 13, and the appeal of the restraining-order denial is being briefed.

Follow what's happening

  1. Lawsuit filed

    Oct 15, 2026

    The United States sued California's top election official and LA County.

  2. Restraining order

    Oct 28, 2026

    The district court refused to order ballots set aside.

  3. Injunction pending appeal

    Oct 30, 2026

    The Ninth Circuit declined to set ballots aside during the appeal.

  4. Supreme Court

    Nov 2, 2026

    The Justices declined to have flagged ballots kept separate during the appeal.

  5. Hearing on injunction

    Nov 13, 2026

    The court will hear the dismissal motions and the injunction request.

The parties

United States

Plaintiff

The federal government, through the Justice Department

Wants

Hold listed voters' ballots until verified

Key arguments

  • Officials knowingly mail ballots to noncitizens

    Not credible, for now. Interim ruling. The district court found the list's reliability unproven at this early stage.

  • Federal law bars counting noncitizens' ballots

    Unlikely to win, for now. Interim ruling. The court found the claim that the federal voting crime law preempts California's process unlikely to succeed.

  • Obstructing federal law gives it the right to sue

    Doubted, for now. Interim ruling. The district court found standing likely lacking; the Ninth Circuit assumed standing without deciding it.

  • Setting ballots aside is not a late rule change

    Rejected for now. Interim ruling. Both courts said changing ballot handling this close to Election Day risked confusion.

Represented by

U.S. Department of Justice

California, LA County, and voter groups

Defendants and intervenor-defendants

State and LA County election officials, plus voter groups

Wants

Dismissal, with ballots counted as usual

Key arguments

  • The U.S. likely lacks standing to bring this suit

    Likely right, for now. Interim ruling. The district court's view at the emergency stage; the Ninth Circuit assumed standing without deciding.

  • The federal list is unreliable and sweeps in citizens

    Accepted for now. Interim ruling. The Ninth Circuit found no error in the district court's doubts about the list.

  • Federal law bars late, systematic voter removals

    Likely right, for now. Interim ruling. Both courts pointed to the 90-day pre-election quiet period in the National Voter Registration Act.

  • It is too late to change the rules mid-election

    Accepted for now. Interim ruling

Represented by

California Attorney General's Office; Elias Law Group

Supporting plaintiff: America First Policy Institute

Supporting defendants and intervenor-defendants: Washington and other states and Bipartisan former governors and Former Justice Department attorneys

Content snapshot as of .