The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has granted a stay in the case of Service Employees International Union v. United States Department of Justice (Docket No. 26-7303), allowing the federal government to continue its actions regarding ballot sequestration. This decision comes after the district court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) that prohibited the government from requesting state election officials to segregate ballots from voters identified as noncitizens. The ruling affects various labor unions and civil rights groups, as well as the federal government's approach to enforcing voting laws.

The case arose when two labor unions, the Service Employees International Union and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, along with civil rights organizations, filed a lawsuit against the DOJ and the Department of Homeland Security. They claimed that the federal government violated the Voting Rights Act and the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution by sending letters to state election officials in California and Washington. These letters demanded that officials sequester ballots from voters suspected of being noncitizens, warning that aiding in such voting could lead to criminal prosecution.

The dispute escalated quickly, with the plaintiffs seeking an immediate TRO to prevent the government from making further requests or threats of prosecution regarding ballot sequestration. The district court granted this request on October 30, 2026, issuing a TRO that would last until November 16, 2026. The TRO barred the government from any further actions related to ballot sequestration and mandated that they notify state and local officials about the injunction.

Following the issuance of the TRO, the federal government appealed the decision, arguing that the court's order was likely to be overturned on appeal and that they would suffer irreparable harm if the stay was not granted. The Ninth Circuit reviewed the government's motion and ultimately decided to grant the stay, allowing the government to continue its actions while the appeal is pending.

In its ruling, the court noted that the district court's order, although labeled a TRO, effectively functioned as a preliminary injunction. The court explained that the plaintiffs had not established a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims, particularly regarding the Voting Rights Act and the Elections Clause. The court stated, "The Government has established a likelihood of success on the merits," indicating that the federal government's actions were likely within its authority.

The Ninth Circuit also highlighted the potential irreparable harm to the government if the stay was not granted. The court explained that being barred from enforcing federal laws regarding elections constituted a form of irreparable injury. In contrast, the plaintiffs' claims of potential harm were deemed less compelling, as they could raise their concerns during any subsequent prosecutions if they were to occur.

The decision has significant implications for the upcoming elections, as it allows the federal government to continue its efforts to identify and segregate ballots from voters suspected of being noncitizens. This ruling may influence how states handle voter eligibility and the counting of ballots in the context of federal law enforcement.

Looking ahead, the case may be appealed further, but for now, the Ninth Circuit's ruling stands. The federal government can continue its actions regarding ballot sequestration while the appeal is processed. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for how federal authorities interact with state election officials in the context of voting rights and election integrity.

Details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases that may be pending. However, the implications of this ruling are likely to resonate throughout the legal landscape surrounding voting rights and election procedures in the United States.