Ninth Circuit Dismisses U.S. Appeal on California Voting Case

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed an appeal from the United States government regarding the handling of vote-by-mail ballots in California. The case, United States v. State of California, No. 26-7070, centers on allegations that California officials failed to prevent noncitizens from voting in federal elections. The court's decision affects the ongoing legal debate over voter eligibility and election integrity in the state.

The dispute began when the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the Department of Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) compiled a list of individuals they believed were noncitizens registered to vote in California. The U.S. government claimed that California officials did not take adequate steps to verify the citizenship status of these individuals before mailing out ballots for the 2026 federal elections. The United States sought a mandatory injunction to set aside ballots from those identified as likely noncitizens and to verify their citizenship before counting their votes.

The case reached the Ninth Circuit after the district court did not rule on the U.S. government's request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) by the deadline the government had set. The U.S. government argued that the lack of a ruling constituted a constructive denial of its request, prompting the appeal.

Background

The parties involved in this case include the United States government as the plaintiff and the State of California, along with Shirley Weber, Ph.D., the California Secretary of State, and Dean Logan, the County of Los Angeles Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk, as defendants. The U.S. government alleged that California automatically mailed vote-by-mail ballots to all registered voters, including those identified as likely noncitizens.

In July 2026, the Secretary of Homeland Security informed California officials that thousands of individuals on the voter rolls were likely noncitizens. The U.S. government requested that California work with federal authorities to verify the citizenship status of these individuals before ballots were mailed. However, California officials expressed skepticism about the federal government's list and proceeded to mail ballots to all registered voters on October 1, 2026, in compliance with state law.

On October 15, 2026, the U.S. government filed a lawsuit against California after the state refused to comply with its demands regarding the verification of citizenship status. The government sought an injunction to prevent California from counting ballots from individuals identified as likely noncitizens until their citizenship could be confirmed.

The Ruling

The Ninth Circuit ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the U.S. government had not given the district court sufficient time to consider its application for a TRO. The court stated, "The United States failed to allow the district court adequate opportunity to consider its application for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)." As a result, the court granted the County's motion to dismiss the appeal and denied the U.S. government's emergency motion for relief as moot.

The ruling was issued per curiam, meaning it was delivered by the court collectively rather than by a single judge. Judges Bennett and Sanchez concurred with the decision, while Judge Bumatay dissented, indicating that he believed the court should have considered the merits of the case.

Impact

The dismissal of the appeal has significant implications for the handling of vote-by-mail ballots in California and the ongoing discussions about election integrity. By ruling that the U.S. government did not meet the necessary legal requirements to pursue its case, the Ninth Circuit effectively upheld California's current practices regarding mail-in ballots.

This decision may influence future cases related to voter eligibility and the verification processes that states implement to ensure that only eligible voters can cast ballots in federal elections. It also raises questions about the balance of power between state and federal authorities in regulating elections.

What's Next

While the U.S. government can appeal this decision to the Supreme Court, it is unclear whether it will choose to do so. There are no related cases pending that directly address the same issues raised in this appeal. The outcome of this case may set a precedent for how similar disputes are handled in the future.