In a series of rulings in the days leading up to Tuesday’s election, federal judges rejected the Trump administration’s efforts to seize control of state voting processes, force state and local election officials to comply with their demands and turn the midterm vote into another opportunity for immigration enforcement.
Late Friday, U.S. District Judge Trina L. Thompson of Northern California issued a sweeping order to the union representing California poll workers, barring the Trump administration from taking a range of election-related actions, including requiring the workers to withhold the ballots of voters whose eligibility the government questions and threatening criminal sanctions if they refuse to do so.
“Election Day is coming. Ballots have been sent out. Americans have begun voting. Workers have begun processing ballots,” Thompson wrote. “Given the consequences of failure to act, the court sees no reason to delay its ruling.”
A Justice Department spokesman criticized Thompson for ruling “without even waiting for a response from the United States” and said her decision was part of a “two-track judicial system” in which other federal judges delayed the Trump administration’s “own emergency election claims” until after Election Day.
“The department is reviewing the order and evaluating all options,” the spokesperson said.
The ruling follows three other rulings – one in Los Angeles District Court and two in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals – in which federal judges blocked the government’s efforts to force California election officials to immediately set aside the ballots of 20,000 voters the government claimed may have been non-citizens, instead setting a timetable for more fact-finding in the case after polls close.
The move follows a ruling in a separate case in Washington, D.C., in which a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to turn over its so-called noncitizen voter rolls to advocacy groups including the Alliance for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles. Data analysts at the UCLA Voting Rights Project wrote in court Saturday that their review of the provided list found that it “contains numerous errors” and included citizens and thousands of others who were not on California’s voter rolls.
Around the same time, the Ninth Circuit decided late Friday not to reconsider a ruling by a smaller three-judge panel that upheld an earlier ruling by U.S. District Judge Araceli Martinez-Holguin in Oakland. She banned federal immigration agents seeking noncitizen voters from conducting door-knocks, street stops and other on-the-ground interviews in California and eight other states.
The administration’s losses — in a wide-ranging case with real implications for elections that decide control of Congress — are the result of legal challenges from liberal states like California, places like Los Angeles County and a coalition of immigration, voting rights and labor groups.
But they are also the product of a bipartisan group of federal judges — including those appointed by President Trump — who have called the administration’s efforts unconstitutional and a threat to one of the most central functions of American democracy.
The judges weighed that threat against the Trump administration’s claims that non-citizen voters posed a threat to election integrity, finding the former to be greater than the latter.
“Of course, there is a contrary public interest. There is also a public interest in preserving the integrity of the election. But as discussed, the district court found that the risks of noncitizen voting were uncertain at best and were mitigated by California’s established voter qualification procedures,” wrote the 9th Circuit majority – one Trump appointee, one President Biden appointee – in declining to block the 20,000 ballots. “In contrast, there is a significant risk that granting the relief requested by the United States would result in disenfranchisement and could jeopardize the county’s entire election.”
Those in the coalition that resisted the government’s efforts celebrated the ruling and praised the court.
“The legal fight against Trump’s illegal actions to undermine our election continues,” California lawyers wrote. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office has filed lawsuits in several of the cases in response to Thompson’s ruling Friday night in favor of the union. “Trump is suffering defeat after defeat as he enters the final throes of this election and works desperately and frantically against the will of the voters.”
“Election Day is 4 days away. Remember: your vote matters. Don’t be intimidated. Keep voting as normal,” Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., wrote in response to the same ruling. “The courts uphold the rule of law and it is the states — not Donald Trump — who run our elections.”
“We said we would not let the Trump administration bully election workers, and today we won an important court order to stop these threats,” SEIU International President April Verrett said. “This ruling is a win for the workers who make our elections possible and the communities they serve.”
The flurry of rulings has been driven in part by the administration itself, as Justice Department officials have been working to bring cases to court at breakneck speed to seek relief before Election Day.
For example, the Ninth Circuit has ruled twice in a case involving 20,000 ballots in California because Justice Department attorneys appealed the matter before the district court ruled, arguing that U.S. District Judge David O. Carter took too long to make his decision.
When the Ninth Circuit rejected that effort and sent the case back to Carter, he issued one of the most high-profile rulings of the week.
“Constitutional rights and our democracy are at stake. The public interest tilts toward protecting them. Individuals who meet the requirements of California’s voter registration laws must not be denied their core rights simply because of a process fraught with uncertainty and error that results in baseless accusations,” Carter wrote. “The public interest also serves to protect election workers who are working diligently to ensure that all citizens can vote.”
When the Trump administration again appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit, a majority of the same panel — Trump appointee Mark J. Bennett and Biden appointee Gabriel P. Sanchez — again rejected the ruling. They wrote that the government’s arguments were legally flawed on multiple fronts, particularly that they sought patently unconstitutional executive powers to interfere in the election.
“We reject the United States’ invitation to violate the Elections Clause by undermining the express text of the Constitution,” they wrote.
The Trump administration’s immediate response was shocking — because there was no response.
For weeks, the administration remained silent as it decried California officials for continuing to count votes, argued to courts that such counts constituted an emergency requiring immediate relief, quickly appealed adverse rulings, and argued the merits of every twist with California officials on social media.
The government missed a deadline to ask the full Court of Appeal to review the three-judge panel’s ruling. It did not immediately appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. First Assistant to the United States Attorney. Bill Essayli, the chief federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, argued the case before Carter and loudly defended the case on social media, but he remained silent. Neither the Justice Department nor Essaly’s office responded to requests for comment on the ruling.