In a swift decision issued on Monday, the Supreme Court rejected the Trump administration’s emergency attempt to force California to separate thousands of ballots. The Justice Department had argued that these votes may have been cast by noncitizens, but the high court denied the request just hours after the filing without providing detailed reasoning or noting any dissents in its one-sentence order. All sides agree, it would be impossible to separate them, once those ballots are processed.
The decision represents a major legal defeat for the administration, which has struggled to gain traction with similar election-related appeals. The court did not request response briefs from California or other involved parties before ruling, a departure from its usual practice in high-profile litigation that signaled a lack of interest in the merits of the case. The appeal arrived on an exceedingly tight timeline, just before the midterm election, with many mail-in ballots likely already processed. Which was based on an uncertain methodology, was a reach that has been rejected by every court to consider it, the unusually fast decision underscored that the administration’s case.
US Solicitor General D. John Sauer had urged the court to grant a “modest remedy” of setting aside the ballots linked to roughly 20,000 individuals flagged by the government. The DOJ contended that it held a constitutional interest in ensuring only citizens vote and alleged that California’s refusal to investigate these registered voters hampered federal criminal enforcement. However, legal teams representing groups opposed to the suit, including Jon Miller of the Public Rights Project, noted that the government has consistently failed to prove its arguments in lower courts. According to “This office has been informed that the United, Has identified more than 20,000 individuals who appear to be registered to vote in California based on publicly available information at the time that information was received, but who, in the United States’ view, are likely not U.S. citizens,” US Solicitor General D. According to “The federal government continues to press the same arguments, despite repeatedly coming up short,”, Jon Miller, chief program officer at Public Rights Project, which is part of the legal team fighting the Justice Department. “This case has bounced between the appellate and district courts – and every time, the courts have found the Justice Department wasn’t entitled to the relief it was seeking.”.
Prior to reaching the Supreme Court, the case faced multiple rejections.
On Friday, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 against the administration, finding that the federal government lacks the authority to dictate state election procedures. Writing for the majority, US Circuit Judge Mark Bennett and Judge Gabriel Sanchez observed that the evidence of noncitizen voting was uncertain and warned that the requested relief risked disenfranchising legitimate voters. The appeals court also cited the “Purcell principle,” a longstanding legal doctrine that cautions federal courts against intervening in election rules shortly before voting takes place.
In a dissenting opinion, US Circuit Judge Patrick Bumatay argued that the administration was merely seeking to prevent the mixing of ballots to preserve the possibility of future review. He asserted that common sense suggests the federal government should not remain passive when it believes federal election integrity is being compromised. Conversely, voting rights advocates maintained that the government’s claims rely on speculative data that could jeopardize the rights of eligible citizens. “Throughout history, federal courts have acted to protect the voting and civil rights of our citizens by enjoining state action that violates the law,” wrote Bumatay, a Trump nominee. “And common sense also tells us that the federal government shouldn’t have to sit on its hands while a state allows the violation of federal law, especially when the integrity of federal elections is at stake.”.
This latest ruling mirrors other recent actions at the Supreme Court regarding election administration. In September, the justices declined to grant the president broad authority to regulate how mail ballots are distributed, though they did rule in favor of the Department of Homeland Security in a separate matter, allowing it to continue providing citizenship-related data to state officials. As of Monday, tens of millions of voters have already participated in the midterm election cycle through early voting, further complicating any potential efforts to retroactively alter ballot handling procedures. In September, the justices rejected the president’s controversial plan to change how mail ballots are sent to voters across the country, rebuffing a proposal that election officials warned would have had catastrophic consequences if allowed to take effect for this year’s midterms. Most notably, the justices in September rejected the president’s attempt to give the US Postal Service extraordinary power to withhold certain mail ballots. This story has been updated with additional details.
