The Supreme Court rejected Trump's emergency request to set aside around 20,000 California ballots linked to suspected non-citizens.
Two lower courts had also rejected the Justice Department's demand to segregate the disputed mail-in ballots.
The ruling left the wider legal questions over federal voter-identification efforts unresolved.
The US Supreme Court on November 2 rejected the Trump administration's attempt to force California to set aside mail-in ballots associated with around 20,000 people identified by federal authorities as suspected non-US citizens. The decision came a day before the November 3 midterm elections, leaving the administration without the emergency court order it had sought to prevent the disputed ballots from being counted.
The Justice Department had approached the Supreme Court after two lower courts rejected its demand that California election officials separate the ballots until the citizenship of the voters could be verified. The administration argued that the measure was necessary to prevent potentially ineligible votes from influencing election results. California officials, however, questioned the accuracy of the federal government's list and warned that the demand could affect eligible American citizens.
The Supreme Court rejected the emergency application without asking California to respond and did not provide a detailed explanation for its decision. Its order did not establish a broader legal position on non-citizen voting or examine every allegation made by the administration. Instead, it left the federal government without the immediate intervention it had requested.
The dispute has brought renewed attention to the division of authority between the federal government and states over election administration, as well as the consequences of using unverified information to challenge voters' eligibility.
What Were The 20,000 California Ballots At The Centre Of The Dispute?
The dispute began when the Trump administration identified around 20,000 people on California's voter rolls whom it suspected of being non-US citizens. The Justice Department subsequently asked state and county election officials to separate the mail-in ballots associated with these individuals and refrain from counting them until their citizenship status could be verified.
According to CBS News, the department sent letters to election officials across California's 58 counties, demanding that ballots linked to the individuals on its list be segregated. The administration argued that this was necessary to ensure that votes cast by people who were not eligible to participate in federal elections were not included in the results.
Under US federal law, non-citizens cannot vote in federal elections. However, being identified on a government list does not establish that an individual is a non-citizen or has voted illegally. The citizenship status of the people flagged by the administration had not been independently established in every case.
California officials challenged the reliability of the federal government's identification process. The UCLA Voting Rights Project also questioned the list's accuracy. Its data analysis found that 42% of the 20,000 names on the federal list did not appear in California's current voter file, CalMatters reported. This did not establish that all those individuals were citizens, but raised questions about the reliability of the government's identification process.
California officials argued that the list could contain errors and that separating ballots based on unverified information could prevent eligible citizens from having their votes counted.
Concerns about the data were also raised during a separate court hearing involving the Justice Department's demands on election officials. When a judge asked department lawyer Kenneth Kao whether the government's data had a high error rate, he replied: "That's a fair statement." He said the department had sought the assistance of local registrars to verify the voters, AP reported.
The administration maintained that the proposed separation was a temporary measure. It wanted election officials to keep the disputed ballots apart while the citizenship of the individuals concerned was checked, rather than immediately discard the votes.
The scale and timing of the demand also raised practical concerns. California has more than 23 million registered voters, and millions of mail-in ballots had already been returned ahead of Election Day.
Why Did Lower Courts Reject Trump's Demand?
California's refusal to comply with the federal government's demand led the Justice Department to take the matter to court. It sought an order compelling state and local election officials to separate the disputed ballots until the citizenship of the associated voters could be established.
US District Judge David O. Carter rejected the administration's request for a temporary restraining order. He questioned the reliability of the government's process for identifying suspected non-citizens and the potential consequences of acting on its findings.
Carter described the identification process as "rife with uncertainty and errors", according to CBS News. He also warned against depriving eligible voters of their right to participate in an election on the basis of unverified allegations.
In his ruling, Carter wrote: "Never before in American history has the federal government, on the eve of an election, sought to coerce a state and local government." He argued that the administration was attempting to override California's established election procedures.
The Justice Department first approached the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on October 26, but the appeals court declined to intervene at that stage, finding that the district court had not been given sufficient opportunity to consider the request. After Carter rejected the administration's application, the department returned to the appeals court. On October 30, a three-judge panel rejected its request for an injunction pending appeal by a 2-1 majority.
The majority, comprising Judges Mark Bennett and Gabriel Sanchez, warned that granting the request could risk "the disenfranchisement of eligible voters" and put the ballot-counting process in jeopardy. Judge Patrick Bumatay dissented.
The administration then approached the Supreme Court, seeking an emergency order that would reverse the lower courts' decisions before Election Day.
What Did The Supreme Court's Order Say?
On November 2, the Justice Department filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court after failing to secure relief from the lower courts.
The administration wanted the justices to direct California officials to keep the disputed ballots separate until the voters' citizenship could be verified. AP reported that the administration described the proposed segregation as a modest measure that would eventually allow eligible votes to be counted after verification.
However, the Supreme Court declined to grant the requested intervention. It rejected the application without seeking a response from California officials. The order was unsigned and did not include a detailed explanation of the justices' reasoning. No dissent was recorded.
The absence of a detailed explanation is important when interpreting the ruling. The court did not publish an opinion setting out why it rejected the application. It would therefore be inaccurate to claim that the justices explicitly endorsed the lower courts' reasoning or ruled that every aspect of the administration's legal argument was unconstitutional.
The decision was a refusal to grant emergency relief, not a comprehensive ruling on the legality of every federal effort to identify potentially ineligible voters. It also did not establish that all the people identified by the administration were eligible to vote.
What Does The Decision Mean For California's Midterm Elections?
The immediate consequence was that the Trump administration failed to obtain an order compelling California to separate the approximately 20,000 disputed ballots. Its request had been rejected by the district court, the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court.
The dispute also raised a broader question about the authority of the federal government to intervene in state election procedures.
Under the US Constitution, states have a central role in administering elections, while Congress also has powers to regulate federal elections. State and local authorities carry out much of the practical work, including voter registration, ballot distribution and counting.
The legal dispute illustrates the difference between identifying a person as potentially ineligible and establishing that the person is legally barred from voting. Non-citizen voting in federal elections is prohibited, but allegations against individuals must still be verified before their ballots can be excluded.
The Supreme Court's refusal to intervene left California without an order requiring it to separate the disputed ballots, while leaving the wider legal questions surrounding the federal government's voter-identification efforts unresolved.
