Supreme Court Rejects Bid to Set Aside California Ballots

The US Supreme Court has rejected the Trump administration’s emergency request to intervene in California’s midterm election vote count and set aside about 20,000 ballots it alleged might have been cast by non-US citizens. The decision leaves in place rulings by two lower courts and effectively ends the administration’s effort to have those ballots excluded. The court issued a one-line order denying the Justice Department’s request for an injunction, on the eve of an election that will determine control of Congress for the final two years of President Donald Trump’s second term. The Justice Department had asked California election officials to segregate ballots associated with registered voters it considered “likely” to be non-citizens. It argued in court that votes cast by non-citizens could dilute valid votes. California officials disputed the reliability of the government’s identification process, describing its list of names as inaccurate and warning that eligible voters could be disenfranchised. They also said separating ballots while voting was underway was impractical. A federal appeals court had rejected the request on Friday, following an earlier rejection by another lower court. The dispute arose as millions of mail-in ballots had already reached election officials in California, a state with roughly 23 million registered voters. The article places the case within a broader campaign by Trump and his administration against alleged voter fraud, particularly claims involving immigrants and postal voting. It notes that research finds voter fraud to be extremely rare. A district judge characterized the administration’s actions as part of an ongoing pattern of attempted election interference, and said the federal government had never before sought, on the eve of an election, to pressure state and local authorities to abandon their election procedures.

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the Department of Justice’s emergency request to stop California from counting mail-in ballots cast by roughly 20,000 voters whom the department said may not be U.S. citizens. The court issued a one-sentence order Monday evening, without explaining its reasoning or noting any dissents. The request came on the eve of Election Day and followed a federal district court ruling allowing the ballots to be counted and a 2-1 denial of the DOJ’s appeal by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The lower courts found, among other concerns, that the government had not established its standing and that blocking the ballots could disenfranchise eligible voters. California Attorney General Rob Bonta called the Supreme Court’s decision appropriate and expected, describing the DOJ request as baseless. The article also reports a separate California case in which a federal judge barred the DOJ from threatening election workers with criminal prosecution for refusing to stop ballot processing or comply with other demands. During a hearing in that case, a DOJ lawyer acknowledged that the lists of purported noncitizens had a high error rate, while arguing that the errors made voter-roll review necessary. The DOJ’s lawsuit, filed October 15, sought to prevent election officials from counting ballots associated with people identified on government-prepared lists until their citizenship could be confirmed. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that the United States had an interest in preventing violations of federal law and that ballots could not be separated once combined with valid ballots. The dispute is part of broader election-related litigation involving the Trump administration, including an unsuccessful DOJ effort in Alaska concerning certification of a U.S. Senate election result. The article places the ruling in the context of closely watched 2026 midterm elections that will determine control of Congress.

The US Supreme Court declined to grant the Trump administration’s request to prevent California from counting more than 20,000 mail-in ballots ahead of the midterm elections. The administration argued that non-US citizens may be attempting to vote and sought an injunction that would have required California to keep suspected illegal ballots separate from valid ones while voter eligibility was checked. The Justice Department’s case relied on a list compiled by the Department of Homeland Security. A California district court had already rejected an earlier lawsuit, and the Supreme Court’s decision left the state free to continue counting ballots. California challenged the federal government’s identification process as likely flawed. An analysis of the list, discussed in a legal filing, found that thousands of US citizens appeared to have been incorrectly flagged as ineligible. A federal judge had also noted that people identified as noncitizens on voter rolls in other states have repeatedly turned out to be naturalized citizens. With early voting underway and hundreds of thousands of ballots already processed, the effort to isolate ballots raised concerns about disrupting election administration and undermining voter confidence. The article places the dispute in the context of Donald Trump’s repeated claims of voter fraud, which it describes as unfounded and contradicted by investigations and research. Judge David Carter warned that singling out ballots based on unproven allegations could cause havoc and put democracy at risk. California Governor Gavin Newsom, a vocal Trump critic, said his state was preparing for possible interference by deploying election law experts and poll observers and providing a voter hotline. California is heavily Democratic and not expected to be competitive for Republicans, adding political context to the dispute.

The report says the US Supreme Court rejected the Trump administration’s request to require California to set aside 20,000 ballots. The federal government had claimed that the ballots belonged to people who are not US citizens. The decision came hours before the final day of voting in the pivotal US midterm elections, placing the dispute close to the end of the voting period. The article does not provide details about the court’s reasoning, the legal arguments made by either side, or how the ballots were identified. It also does not explain what effect the ruling might have on the election or whether any further legal action was expected. France 24’s correspondent Wassim Cornet reports on the decision in a short video segment. The supplied page text gives no additional substantive reporting beyond this account; the remaining material consists mainly of site notices and links to other election-related coverage. Those related headlines mention the midterms’ political stakes, but are not part of the article’s report. Overall, the central news is that the court declined the administration’s effort to exclude or segregate the disputed ballots, leaving the requested action unimplemented as voting neared its conclusion.

A US District Court judge has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from sending states lists of registered voters it says may not be US citizens and from asking officials to set aside or withhold those voters’ ballots until citizenship is verified. Judge Tanya Chutkan said the administration’s data may be unreliable, creating a risk that eligible voters could be disenfranchised ahead of the Nov 3 midterm elections. The ruling is another legal setback for President Donald Trump’s efforts to increase federal control over election administration. The administration had sent letters to California and Washington state seeking action against ballots associated with voters on its lists. Voting-rights and privacy advocates challenged the effort, arguing that it could violate the Privacy Act of 1974, which limits federal disclosure of sensitive personal information. The Justice Department maintained that its letters were part of enforcing a federal law against non-citizen voting, not a separate policy reviewable by a court. Other courts have also rejected related requests. A Los Angeles judge declined to order California to set aside mailed ballots from more than 20,000 registered voters the administration considered likely non-citizens, and an appeals court rejected an emergency request by the Justice Department. A San Francisco judge separately ordered the department to stop threatening state and local election officials with prosecution for failing to comply with its demands. The article notes that non-citizen voting is illegal and, according to available evidence, exceedingly rare. Trump has repeatedly alleged that states facilitate it, while falsely claiming that fraud caused his 2020 election loss. In a separate case on Nov 2, however, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the government to threaten prosecution of officials who did not comply with demands concerning alleged non-citizen voting. Chutkan is not bound by that ruling.

The article examines a recent series of US Supreme Court decisions that have halted what it describes as President Donald Trump and Republicans’ winning streak in election-related litigation. On the eve of the midterm elections, the court rejected the administration’s emergency request to stop California from counting mail ballots from more than 20,000 registered voters whom federal officials alleged were likely noncitizens. The justices issued a brief, unexplained order within hours and recorded no public dissents. The court had also recently declined to reinstate a federal rule restricting mail-in voting and rejected efforts to use a Republican-favoring Missouri congressional map during the election. Legal scholars quoted in the article say these setbacks may reflect the weak or hastily developed arguments in the administration’s recent cases, rather than a broad change in the court’s approach. The Justice Department said it would continue election enforcement efforts, including deploying monitors and pursuing other legal options. The article contrasts these losses with earlier victories for Republican interests. The court weakened a key Voting Rights Act provision, struck down longstanding campaign-finance limits in a case involving JD Vance, and allowed policies facilitating greater party spending on broadcast advertising. It also permitted partisan redistricting in Texas and California, contributing to a broader redistricting contest between the parties. The article notes that control of Congress is at stake in the midterms: Republicans have narrow majorities, and a Democratic takeover of either chamber could obstruct Trump’s legislative agenda and enable investigations. It also reports that lower courts questioned the reliability of the federal list of alleged noncitizen voters, while studies and state audits indicate that ineligible voting is rare. Trump has repeatedly made false claims about widespread election fraud. The supplied article text ends partway through a quotation from California Attorney General Rob Bonta.