US Appeals Court Blocks Trump DOJ Bid to Stop California Mail Ballot 2026

A US appeals court on Monday ruled against Donald Trump's Justice Department in a major voting dispute ahead of the midterm elections, denying a request to block California from counting mail ballots from people on a list of more than 20,000 registered voters the federal government alleges are likely noncitizens. The decision by the San Francisco-based Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals marked the latest setback in Trump's efforts to assert a greater federal role in overseeing elections in the run-up to the November 3 midterms, in which his fellow Republicans are fighting to retain control of Congress.

The ruling is a significant win for California election officials, who have argued that the federal government's list is flawed and that removing voters from the rolls or setting aside their ballots without due process would disenfranchise eligible citizens. The case underscores the intensifying legal battles over mail-in voting and federal authority in elections.

What the Ninth Circuit Decision Means for California Voters

The Ninth Circuit's denial of the Justice Department's request means that California counties can continue to count mail ballots from the roughly 20,000 voters flagged by the federal government. The court's action effectively pauses the federal government's effort to force local election officials to set aside and verify those ballots before they are counted.

This is not the first time the Trump administration has clashed with California over voting procedures. The Justice Department's lawsuit, filed earlier this month, was the latest escalation in a broader battle between the administration and the state over election rules. The appeals court's ruling suggests that the federal government's legal theory may face an uphill battle in the courts.

The decision comes just days after at least 18 counties across California received letters from the Trump administration demanding that local election officials set aside and verify ballots from voters the government claims are noncitizens. Those letters prompted immediate pushback from state officials, who argued that the federal government's list is unreliable and that such demands could lead to the wrongful removal of eligible voters.

Why the Federal Government's List Is Controversial

The federal government's list of more than 20,000 registered voters alleged to be noncitizens has been met with skepticism from voting rights advocates and California officials. Critics argue that the list may contain errors, such as mistaken identity or outdated information, and that using it to challenge ballots could disenfranchise legitimate voters.

California has a long history of expanding access to mail-in voting, and state officials have emphasized that safeguards are in place to ensure only eligible voters cast ballots. The federal government's intervention, they argue, threatens to undermine public confidence in the electoral process and create chaos just weeks before the midterms.

The Ninth Circuit's ruling does not resolve the underlying legal dispute, but it removes an immediate obstacle to California's ability to count mail ballots in a timely manner. The case is likely to continue in the lower courts, where the merits of the federal government's claims will be examined.

Broader Implications for the Midterms and Federal Election Oversight

The ruling is the latest in a series of legal setbacks for the Trump administration's efforts to reshape election rules ahead of the midterms. It follows other high-profile cases, including the Supreme Court's rejection of Trump's mail ballot restrictions and a California sheriff being ordered to return 650,000 seized ballots.

These cases highlight the growing tension between federal and state authority over elections. The Trump administration has argued that federal oversight is necessary to prevent voter fraud, while California and other states have asserted their constitutional authority to administer elections.

The outcome of these legal battles could have significant implications for how elections are conducted in the future, particularly regarding mail-in voting, which has become increasingly popular in many states.

What to Watch Next

With the midterms fast approaching, the legal fight over California's mail ballots is far from over. The Justice Department could seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court, though it is unclear whether the high court would intervene at this stage. Meanwhile, California election officials are continuing to prepare for the November 3 elections, urging voters to return their ballots early and reassuring them that their votes will be counted. The background to this story is set out in US Appeals Court Rejects Trump Mail-In Voting Restrictions Bid. A related thread runs through Supreme Court Rejects Trump Mail Ballot Restrictions for Midterms. Earlier coverage in North Carolina Leads US Mail-In Ballot Rollout for Midterms shows how the argument developed.

The case also raises questions about the role of federal agencies in election administration and whether the Trump administration's efforts will ultimately succeed in changing the rules. For now, the Ninth Circuit's ruling allows California to proceed with counting mail ballots, but the broader legal and political battles are likely to continue. A closer look at the same subject appears in Federal Judge Blocks Trump DoJ Voter Roll Collection Policy. Anyone following the wider picture can start with Supreme Court Rejects Trump Mail Ballot Restrictions on States. The same theme surfaces in Trump’s DoJ Drops Subpoena Effort Against New York Times, which takes a different angle.

As the midterms draw closer, the stakes could not be higher. The outcome of this dispute could affect not only California's elections but also set a precedent for how federal courts handle similar challenges in other states. Context on how this played out before sits in Mail-In Ballot Screening System Risks Rejecting Entire Batches. A companion piece, USPS New Mail Ballot Rules Take Effect: Impact on Voting, approaches the same subject from another angle.

FAQ