WASHINGTON, D.C. — On the eve of the 2026 midterm elections, the Supreme Court handed the Trump administration a sharp setback, rejecting an emergency request to force California to set aside more than 20,000 mail-in ballots that federal officials claim were cast by noncitizens. The brief, unsigned order offered no explanation and, according to The Daily Beast, noted no public dissents.

The ruling, issued Monday, November 2, closed what had been a frantic, days-long legal sprint over whether the federal government can dictate how a state handles its own ballots just as voters head to the polls.

What the Administration Asked For

The Justice Department sued California on October 15, alleging the state was impeding enforcement of the federal ban on noncitizen voting in federal elections and arguing a violation of the Supremacy Clause. Lawyers for the administration then asked courts to require California to segregate roughly 20,000 ballots identified as likely belonging to noncitizens, saying that segregating them would preserve the ballots for investigation without canceling any votes. Once illegally cast ballots are counted, the government argued, the harm cannot be undone.

California officials flatly rejected the premise. State leaders say safeguards against noncitizen voting are robust and that the federal list of "likely noncitizens" may contain errors that could strip eligible citizens of their right to vote.

A String of Losses in Lower Courts

The administration lost at every stage before reaching the high court. U.S. District Judge David Carter, a Clinton appointee, issued a 26-page ruling against the government earlier in the week. "California and its people are sovereign, too," he wrote, in a decision that criticized the government's eleventh-hour intervention.

On Friday, a divided three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 for California. Judges Mark Bennett, appointed by President Trump, and Gabriel Sanchez, appointed by President Biden, formed the majority. They wrote that the administration's position risked "undermining the Constitution's plain text" and that if officials want that power, "it should take that suggestion to Congress, not the courts." Judge Patrick Bumatay, also a Trump appointee, dissented.

Administration lawyers then rushed to the Supreme Court, asking for relief just hours after the appeals ruling. The Court denied the request without first asking California to respond, a step The Daily Beast called unusual. Fox News reported that Justice Elena Kagan, who handles emergency matters from the Ninth Circuit, denied the application; the order itself did not identify the justice.

Reaction

California Attorney General Rob Bonta praised the outcome. "The administration's baseless claims of widespread fraud are an attempt to sow doubt in our democratic process and risk disenfranchising eligible voters," Bonta said in a statement. "We will keep fighting to uphold the rule of law." He added that California law makes it illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal elections. The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The administration did not walk away empty-handed in the public arena. The same day, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of California charged six more foreign nationals with illegally voting in the 2024 presidential election. Last month, prosecutors charged 28 foreign nationals with election crimes. U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli said all 34 defendants were among the 20,000-plus people the administration had flagged as likely noncitizens on California's voter rolls. Critics note that 34 cases is a tiny fraction of the flagged group, while supporters argue the charges show the concern is real.

Another Front in the Federal-State Fight

Fox News also reported that in Washington, a federal judge in a separate proceeding indicated the administration was likely violating the Constitution by taking over election responsibilities that belong to states and Congress, and issued an injunction limiting the administration's requests to California over its mail-in ballots. That detail was reported by a single outlet, and the full text of the order should be reviewed for the exact scope.

Why It Matters to Every Voter

The Constitution's Elections Clause gives states the primary role in running elections, with Congress holding the power to regulate. The question at the heart of this dispute is whether the executive branch can step in unilaterally, days before votes are counted, to treat a category of ballots differently. Three levels of federal courts, drawing judges appointed by presidents of both parties, said no.

The emergency order is not a final ruling on the merits, and the underlying Justice Department lawsuit continues. Legal experts expect continued fights over voter-roll data, citizenship verification and mail-ballot procedures well after the midterms. For now, California's ballots will be counted as the state's laws require, and the practical effect is that tens of thousands of voters will not see their ballots set apart.

With Americans voting nationwide today, election officials are urging patience as results are tallied, particularly in states like California that count mail ballots for days after Election Day.