Supreme Court declines Trump administration's request to intervene in California ballot dispute

The Supreme Court declined to intervene in the Trump administration’s effort to stop California from counting ballots allegedly cast by noncitizens. The unsigned order was released shortly before 6 p.m., and no justices were recorded as dissenting. The decision came one day before the midterm elections.

The administration wanted California to keep the disputed ballots separate until citizenship could be checked. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that mixing them with lawful ballots would make recovery impossible. He also requested an immediate administrative injunction while the justices considered the larger emergency request.

The ruling followed losses in both lower courts. Judge David Carter denied temporary relief on October 28, and the 9th Circuit rejected emergency relief on Friday. The Supreme Court’s refusal meant the administration did not obtain the ballot-segregation order it sought before California’s mail-ballot deadline.

An administrative injunction is a short-term court order issued while the court reviews a request for emergency relief. It does not necessarily resolve the underlying legal dispute. Instead, it can temporarily control what parties must do so the dispute does not become impossible to fix.

Here, Solicitor General D. John Sauer asked the Supreme Court to require California to segregate mail ballots from people identified by the United States as likely noncitizens. The administration wanted the ballots held apart while the justices considered whether to grant broader temporary relief. Its concern was that processed ballots could not later be identified.

The request mattered because the election timetable was nearly finished. Voting was one day away, and California could receive mail ballots through November 10. The full court declined the request after Justice Elena Kagan referred it there, so no immediate segregation order was issued by the Supreme Court.

The Trump administration claimed that more than 20,000 noncitizens had registered to vote in California and might have cast ballots. It used that figure to argue that the state should not count the ballots until the voters’ citizenship was verified.

The administration’s filing did not ask the Supreme Court to decide every voter’s status immediately. Instead, Sauer requested a temporary process: California would keep the identified ballots separate from lawful ballots. The government argued that federal law makes any ballot cast by a noncitizen unlawful in a federal election.

The figure remained an allegation, not a judicial finding that every identified voter was a noncitizen. Judge David Carter questioned the credibility of the government’s claims, and the 9th Circuit denied emergency relief. The Supreme Court then rejected the administration’s request without recording any dissents.

The administration argued that counting or commingling the challenged ballots would create an irreversible problem. After ballots were mixed with lawful ballots, officials could no longer reliably separate the ballots connected to voters whose citizenship had not been verified.

Sauer quoted California as acknowledging that there was no way to trace a ballot after processing. He therefore asked the Supreme Court to require segregation before counting. The proposed remedy would have kept the disputed ballots apart while the courts considered whether the government’s legal claim was likely to succeed.

The administration described the loss of ballot traceability as permanent harm. It said that harm could continue through November 10, California’s deadline for receiving mail ballots. The Supreme Court declined the request, so the article does not report any Supreme Court-ordered system for recovering or isolating those ballots after processing.

The article does not identify a detailed flaw in the government’s underlying data. It reports that Judge David Carter questioned the credibility of the Trump administration’s allegations that the voters it identified were not U.S. citizens. That doubt weakened the government’s request for immediate action.

Carter considered the administration’s request for a temporary order directing California to sequester ballots from “likely noncitizens.” He rejected it on October 28. The 9th Circuit later rejected the administration’s motion for emergency relief, leaving the government without the temporary protection it wanted.

Because the lower courts questioned the evidence, the administration had to persuade the Supreme Court that it was likely to win on the merits despite the uncertainty. Sauer argued that federal law barred noncitizens from voting in federal elections. The Supreme Court nevertheless declined the request, without explaining its reasoning in the unsigned order.

The article presents federal law as defining who may vote in federal elections. Sauer argued that because federal law bars noncitizens, any ballot cast by an “alien” is unlawful. That was the administration’s legal basis for asking courts to stop California from counting the challenged ballots.

California’s role in the dispute concerns election administration. Sauer argued that California’s own laws contemplate segregating challenged ballots, a procedure he described as standard in election cases. The requested process would have kept disputed mail ballots separate while citizenship was checked and the courts reviewed the claims.

The article does not explain every division of authority or identify which official would make final citizenship determinations. It does show the administration invoking federal eligibility rules and seeking a federal court order controlling California’s ballot handling. The lower courts and Supreme Court refused the requested emergency intervention described in the article.

Courts usually require a convincing emergency showing because interrupting an election can alter procedures immediately and create problems that are difficult to reverse. The party seeking relief must generally show a strong chance of winning and serious harm without an order. The court also considers hardship to the other side.

Those factors appeared directly in Sauer’s filing. He argued that federal law made the challenged ballots unlawful and that the government would suffer permanent harm because processed ballots could not be traced. He also claimed California would face no undue hardship from separating them.

Timing made the request especially consequential. The administration sought Supreme Court action one day before the midterm elections, while California could receive mail ballots through November 10. The Supreme Court declined the request, showing that the administration did not obtain emergency intervention despite its arguments about legal success and irreparable harm.