A federal appeals court has rejected the Trump administration’s urgent request to stop California from counting more than 20,000 mail-in ballots. The government claims the ballots may be linked to people who are not US citizens.
The ruling is a setback for the Justice Department. It comes as President Donald Trump’s administration seeks to expand federal influence over state election systems.
On Monday, a three-judge panel of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the government’s emergency appeal in a 2-1 decision. The ruling followed a rare hearing held online on Sunday.
Judge Mark Bennett, who was appointed by Trump, and Judge Gabriel Sanchez, appointed by former President Joe Biden, voted against the request. They said the appeals court could not take up the case before the lower court had ruled on the matter.
The judges also questioned the government’s claim that immediate action was needed. They said delays by the Justice Department had helped create the emergency it described.
“The United States’s claimed emergency, at least in part, is a self-constructed one,” the majority wrote.
The judges noted that the department had delayed filing its lawsuit. They also said the government had taken time to understand California’s election laws and the state’s process for handling ballots.
California has millions of registered voters. Its election system needs time to process ballots and follow the rules set by state law.
The appeals court sent the dispute back to the federal district court in California. A hearing there is scheduled for Tuesday at 4 p.m. Eastern Time.
The Justice Department filed its lawsuit earlier this month. It asked the court to prevent California officials from counting more than 20,000 mail-in ballots linked to people the federal government believes may not be citizens.
The department argues that these people may not be eligible to vote in federal elections. California and Los Angeles County have challenged the request and raised concerns about the information used to identify the voters.
The Justice Department sought help from the appeals court after the district court did not issue a ruling last week. The department wanted a decision before Tuesday’s planned hearing.
The appeals court refused to step in at this stage. However, its ruling did not settle whether the ballots can legally be counted.
Instead, the judges focused on whether they had the power to decide the case before the lower court had acted. The district court must now review the arguments and evidence.
Even though the ruling dealt with court procedure, two judges expressed strong doubts about the Justice Department’s case during Sunday’s hearing.
Bennett wrote in a separate opinion that he would have ruled against the federal government if the appeals court had been able to decide the full case at that time.
He said the federal law cited by the Justice Department did not take away the states’ main role in running elections.
Bennett also warned that the requested order could cause serious harm. It could stop eligible voters from having their ballots counted and put the wider vote-counting process at risk.
He said California still has the duty to set rules for congressional elections and handle ballot challenges under state law.
Judge Patrick Bumatay, another Trump appointee, disagreed with the majority. He issued a separate opinion in support of a different outcome.
California officials and Los Angeles County argued that the Constitution gives states the main role in managing elections, along with certain powers held by Congress. They said the federal government’s claims relied on voter lists that could contain errors.
They also said the list arrived while the election process was already underway. Changing the rules at that stage, they argued, could confuse voters and disrupt election work.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta welcomed the appeals court’s decision on Monday.
“The court’s order serves as an important step in our efforts to protect Californians’ right to vote and our state’s authority to run fair and secure elections,” Bonta said.
During Sunday’s hearing, Bennett questioned why a federal court should overturn California’s election rules. He noted that the Constitution gives states a central role in running elections.
He asked Justice Department lawyer Matthew Donnelly how the court could issue an order that conflicted with rules adopted by the California legislature.
Sanchez also warned that the government’s request could change election rules while voting was underway. He said the move could confuse voters, divert election staff from other tasks, and disrupt the counting process.
Sanchez further questioned how the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security created the list of more than 20,000 voters.
He pointed to sworn statements from two Homeland Security officials. The statements referred to third-party data and reliable analysis but offered little detail about the sources.
Sanchez pressed Donnelly to explain what those terms meant and how the data supported the government’s claims.
The district court hearing will allow the judge to review the dispute in greater detail. For now, the appeals court has not ordered California to set aside the ballots.
The case highlights a wider debate over state control of elections, federal authority, and the use of voter data. The next court proceedings will help determine whether the Justice Department can pursue its challenge to California’s mail-in ballots.
