The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled against the United States government in a case concerning the counting of mail-in ballots in California. The court denied an emergency request from the U.S. to block ballots sent to individuals identified as likely noncitizens. This decision affects the upcoming midterm elections, as it allows California to continue its voting procedures without interference from federal authorities.
The case, titled United States v. State of California (No. 26-7231), arose when the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Department of Homeland Security provided California officials with a list of individuals they believed to be noncitizens. The federal government argued that California's actions violated the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution and 18 U.S.C. § 611, which prohibits noncitizens from voting. The U.S. sought a temporary restraining order to prevent California from counting ballots from individuals on this list.
The dispute began when the U.S. government provided California with a list of “high-confidence” noncitizens in October 2026, shortly before the midterm elections. The government requested that California sequester the ballots of these individuals to verify their citizenship before counting their votes. California officials expressed skepticism about the reliability of the list and refused to comply with the request, leading the U.S. to file a lawsuit on October 15, 2026.
The district court denied the U.S. request for a temporary restraining order, prompting the government to appeal the decision. The Ninth Circuit's ruling focused on whether the U.S. had demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its case and whether it would suffer irreparable harm without the injunction.
The court ruled that the U.S. had not met its burden of proof. The judges stated, "The United States has failed to meet its burden in showing that an injunction pending appeal is warranted." The court also noted that the U.S. did not provide sufficient evidence to support its claims about the reliability of the list of suspected noncitizens.
The Ninth Circuit judges pointed out that the case involved California's procedures for administering its elections, which are protected under the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The court emphasized that states have broad authority to regulate their own election processes, and the U.S. had not shown that California's actions were preempted by federal law.
In their opinion, the judges stated, "Nothing in § 611, a statute that criminalizes voting by a noncitizen, preempts California’s comprehensive statutory scheme that has been duly enacted under the Elections Clause." They concluded that the U.S. had not demonstrated a clear likelihood of success on its preemption argument.
The impact of this ruling is significant for the upcoming elections. By allowing California to continue its voting procedures without federal intervention, the Ninth Circuit's decision may set a precedent for how states can manage their elections in relation to federal laws. This ruling reinforces the autonomy of states in determining their election processes, particularly regarding voter eligibility and ballot counting.
The court's decision also raises questions about the reliability of the U.S. government's list of suspected noncitizens. The Ninth Circuit found that the federal government had not provided adequate evidence to support its claims about the individuals on the list, which could lead to potential disenfranchisement of eligible voters if ballots were to be segregated based solely on this list.
Looking ahead, the U.S. government has the option to appeal the Ninth Circuit's ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, although it is unclear if they will pursue this route. The case highlights ongoing tensions between state and federal authorities regarding election administration and voter eligibility, particularly as the nation approaches a critical election period.
As the situation develops, it remains to be seen how this ruling will influence future legal battles over election integrity and the rights of voters in California and beyond. With the midterm elections approaching, the implications of this case will likely be felt across the country as states navigate their responsibilities under both state and federal law.
