A federal appeals court has rejected the Trump administration’s bid 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 decision is a setback for the Justice Department. It comes as the administration seeks a greater role in how states manage elections.
On Monday, a three-judge panel from the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the government’s emergency appeal by a 2-1 vote. The ruling came after an unusual hearing held online on Sunday.
Judge Mark Bennett, a Trump appointee, and Judge Gabriel Sanchez, appointed by former President Joe Biden, formed the majority. They said the appeals court could not take up the case before the lower court had addressed it.
The judges also questioned why the Justice Department had waited to seek emergency relief. In their ruling, they said the government had helped create the urgent situation it now described.
“The United States’s claimed emergency, at least in part, is a self-constructed one,” the majority wrote.
The judges pointed to delays in filing the lawsuit and in understanding California’s election rules. They also noted that the state has millions of registered voters and needs time to process ballots under its existing system.
The decision sends the dispute back to a federal district court in California. A hearing is set for Tuesday at 4 p.m. Eastern Time.
The Justice Department filed the lawsuit earlier this month. It asked a judge to stop state 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 voters could be ineligible to vote in federal elections. California and Los Angeles County have challenged the request and questioned the information used to identify the voters.
The Justice Department turned to the appeals court after the district court did not issue a ruling last week. It wanted the higher court to act before the scheduled hearing on Tuesday.
The appeals court refused to intervene at this stage. However, the ruling did not settle the main question of whether the ballots can 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 consider the dispute.
Despite the limited scope of the ruling, two judges raised serious doubts about the government’s legal arguments during Sunday’s hearing.
Bennett wrote in a separate opinion that he would have ruled against the Justice Department if the appeals court had the power to decide the full case at that time.
He said the federal law cited by the government did not remove the states’ main authority over election rules.
Bennett also warned that the requested order could cause serious harm. It could block eligible voters from having their ballots counted and put the wider vote-counting process at risk.
He added that 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 and issued a dissenting opinion.
California officials and Los Angeles County argued that the Constitution gives states the main role in running elections, while also granting certain powers to Congress. They said the Justice Department relied on weak data to support its claims about the voters.
State officials also argued that the federal list arrived while the election process was already underway. They warned that changing the rules at this point could confuse voters and disrupt election work.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta welcomed the 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 asked why the courts should overturn California’s election procedures. He noted that the Constitution gives states a central role in running elections, along with Congress.
He questioned how the court could issue an order that conflicted with rules passed by the California legislature.
Sanchez also warned that the Justice Department’s plan could change election rules while voting was underway. He said the move could confuse voters, divert staff from other duties, and disrupt the counting process.
In his separate opinion, Sanchez said the government was asking a federal court to intervene in a matter that has long been handled by states. He warned that the request could create disorder for voters and election officials.
Sanchez also questioned how the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security had built the list of more than 20,000 voters.
He pointed to sworn statements from two Homeland Security officials. These statements referred to third-party data and reliable analysis but did not clearly explain the sources.
Sanchez pressed Justice Department lawyer Matthew Donnelly to explain what the terms meant and how the data supported the government’s claims.
The district court hearing will give the judge a chance to examine the evidence and legal arguments. The dispute remains unresolved, and the appeals court has not ordered California to set aside the ballots.
The case raises important questions about state control of elections, federal power, and the use of voter data. The next court proceedings will help determine how the challenge to California’s mail-in ballots moves forward.
