WASHINGTON, United States – The US Supreme Court has rejected U.S. President Donald Trump’s emergency attempt to force California to separate and withhold thousands of mail-in ballots flagged by the federal government as potentially belonging to noncitizens, handing his administration another setback in its election-related legal battles.
The justices issued a one-sentence order on Monday, November 2, hours after the Justice Department filed its emergency application, leaving California election officials free to continue processing and counting the disputed ballots.
The court offered no explanation for its decision, and no justice publicly dissented.
The administration wanted California to set aside ballots associated with more than 20,000 people whom federal officials had identified as likely noncitizens, pending verification of their citizenship status.
However, the government had not established that all the individuals on its list were noncitizens or that they had illegally voted.
Why Trump Wanted California to Separate the Ballots
US Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the Supreme Court that federal authorities had identified more than 20,000 individuals who appeared to be registered to vote in California despite allegedly not being US citizens.
The Justice Department argued that allowing ballots associated with those individuals to be counted without further verification could undermine federal election laws.
Under federal law, noncitizens are prohibited from voting in elections involving federal offices, although some jurisdictions permit noncitizens to participate in certain local elections under specific conditions.
The administration therefore asked the Supreme Court to order California to temporarily segregate the disputed ballots until their eligibility could be established.
California officials and voting rights organisations opposed the request, arguing that the federal government’s list was unreliable and could wrongly implicate eligible American citizens.
They also warned that separating the ballots after election officials had begun processing them could create serious logistical problems and risk disenfranchising lawful voters.
Courts Reject Trump’s Election Intervention Bid
The Supreme Court’s decision followed a series of defeats for the Trump administration in lower federal courts.
On October 30, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected the administration’s emergency request to block California from counting the disputed ballots.
In its 2-1 decision, the appeals court said the government had failed to demonstrate that the requested intervention was justified.
The majority also warned that granting the request could create significant hardship, threaten the disenfranchisement of eligible voters and disrupt the ballot-counting process.
The judges noted that the district court had found the risk of noncitizens voting to be uncertain, while California had established procedures for determining voter eligibility.
Judge Patrick Bumatay dissented, arguing that the federal government should be allowed to preserve the disputed ballots while citizenship checks were conducted.
A federal district court had also rejected the Justice Department’s request for a temporary restraining order.
The Supreme Court’s latest order leaves those lower-court outcomes in place and denies the administration the emergency relief it sought.
California Celebrates Supreme Court Decision
California Governor Gavin Newsom welcomed the ruling, describing it as another rejection of the Trump administration’s attempt to interfere with the state’s election process.
He said the administration had repeatedly failed to convince courts that its proposed intervention was legally justified.
Uzoma Nkwonta, an attorney representing organisations opposed to the federal government’s lawsuit, said every court that had considered the dispute had rejected the Justice Department’s request.
The administration, however, maintained that it had a constitutional responsibility to ensure that only eligible citizens participated in federal elections.
Another Setback for Trump at the Supreme Court
The ruling adds to Trump’s mixed record in emergency appeals involving election administration.
In September, the Supreme Court rejected his administration’s attempt to give the US Postal Service expanded authority to withhold certain mail ballots during the 2026 midterm elections.
However, the justices later allowed the Department of Homeland Security to continue providing controversial citizenship-related information to state election officials.
The latest dispute also raised concerns about the timing of federal court intervention in elections.
Under the legal doctrine known as the Purcell principle, courts are generally cautious about changing election rules close to voting day because last-minute interventions can create confusion and disrupt election administration.
