Should ballots be set aside while the United States appeals?
The Ninth Circuit denied the request on October 30 over a dissent, and the Supreme Court denied it on November 2. A renewed district-court request is unruled.
The United States asks the Ninth Circuit for an injunction pending appeal
It asked the appeals court to order ballots set aside while it appeals the restraining-order denial.
Bipartisan former governors, former Justice Department lawyers, and a group of states filed briefs supporting California and the voter groups.
The state opposed the motion.
SIREN and Mi Familia en Acción, and separately LULAC and NAACP, opposed the motion.
Over Judge Bumatay's dissent, the panel found no abuse of discretion in denying the restraining order. No judge sought full-court review.
The United States asks the Supreme Court for an injunction pending appeal
It asked the Justices to have California keep flagged ballots separate, not cancel them, during the appeal, plus a temporary order while they decide.
Justice Kagan referred the application to the full Court, which denied it in a one-line order without explanation.
Should the court dismiss the United States' lawsuit?
California and LA County moved to dismiss on October 21; on November 2 LULAC and NAACP joined and California stood on its motion. The court hears the motions November 13.
California and LA County ask the court to dismiss the lawsuit
The state and its Secretary of State asked the court to dismiss the complaint, and joined a request to hear the motions quickly.
The County's registrar filed his own motion to dismiss.
He allowed amended motions and an intervenor motion by November 2 and set a November 13 hearing.
LULAC and NAACP join the request to dismiss the lawsuit
They adopted the state's and County's reasons, citing the Ninth Circuit's ruling, and asked for a decision before any hearing on the list.
The state chose not to amend its motion and asked the court to grant it, pointing to the rulings against the United States so far.
Next step: Hearing on the motions to dismiss
Should the court order listed voters' mail ballots set aside?
The district court denied a restraining order on October 28, and the United States appealed. The injunction request goes to a November 13 hearing; appeal briefs start November 30.
The United States asks for an emergency order to hold flagged ballots
It asked the judge to make LA County set aside mail ballots of people on its list of likely noncitizens, and asked for a fast ruling.
He set argument for October 27 and told the groups seeking to join the case to argue too.
The state filed a supplemental opposition to the request, backed by a new declaration.
It replied in support and filed new declarations, including a response to the County's sample of listed records.
The voter groups responded to the new declarations with a supplemental expert declaration and news reports.
After a hearing, he found the U.S. unlikely to win, the list's accuracy unproven, and the request too close to Election Day.
The United States appeals the denial to the Ninth Circuit
It appealed the October 28 order denying the restraining order.
The opening brief is due November 30 and the answering brief December 30.
The United States asks for a preliminary injunction
He set a November 13 hearing, ordered witness lists on the list's reliability by November 6, and appointed a special master.
Next step: Hearing on the injunction request
Should the courts accept the proposed friend-of-the-court briefs?
The district court accepted a brief from Washington and other states; other requests there await rulings. The Ninth Circuit accepted four amicus briefs on October 30.
Washington and other states ask to file a brief in the trial court
The states asked to file a friend-of-the-court brief.
He granted the states' request.
More groups and states ask to file briefs in the trial court
Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California and Common Cause asked to file briefs.
Florida and ten other states, the NRCC, and the America First Policy Institute asked to file briefs. No ruling appears yet.
Four groups ask to file briefs in the Ninth Circuit
The policy group asked to file a brief supporting the United States' emergency motion.
Bipartisan former governors, former Justice Department lawyers, and a group of states asked to file briefs supporting California and the voter groups.
The clerk granted all four requests.
Should voter and civil rights groups join as defendants?Yes: both groups may join as defendants ·
Over the United States' objection, the court let NAACP, LULAC, SIREN, and Mi Familia en Acción defend the case on October 28.
Voter and civil rights groups ask to join the case as defendants
The immigrant rights groups asked to defend the case and filed a proposed answer.
The voting rights groups filed their own motion to join as defendants.
It objected to SIREN and Mi Familia en Acción joining the case.
They filed a further brief and declaration supporting their motion.
They replied in support of their motion.
He found the motions timely and said the groups represent thousands of voters whose interests the existing parties may not adequately protect.
Can the appeals court hear an appeal filed before the judge ruled?No: appeal dismissed, no ruling yet to review ·
The United States appealed, calling the judge's silence a denial. The Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction on October 26.
The United States appeals before the judge rules on its emergency request
It appealed, treating the judge's delay in ruling on its restraining-order request as a denial.
The County's registrar argued there was no ruling yet for the appeals court to review.
The panel heard remote argument on Sunday, October 25.
It argued the appeals court could hear the appeal now.
The registrar replied in support of dismissal.
Over one judge's dissent, the panel held it lacked jurisdiction because the judge had not yet effectively denied the request. The mandate issued.