US Supreme Court rejects Trump attempt to sideline California ballots

• US Supreme Court on Monday denied an emergency bid by the Justice Department to force California election officials
• The justices issued an unsigned, one-sentence order without recorded dissents just hours after the filing

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an emergency petition by the Trump administration seeking to require California election officials to segregate tens of thousands of mail-in ballots that the Department of Justice alleged may have been cast by noncitizens.

The US high court issued an unsigned, one-sentence order denying the administration’s request mere hours after it was submitted, with no noted dissents. The justices resolved the application without requesting formal response briefs from California state officials or intervening voting rights organizations, departing from standard procedure in major election-related disputes.

The legal action arrived on the eve of Tuesday's nationwide midterm elections, at a stage when tens of millions of early and mail-in ballots have already been received and processed across the country.

In the emergency filing, US Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that federal authorities had identified more than 20,000 registered voters in California who, based on cross-referenced public records, appeared likely to lack US citizenship.

Sauer requested a court order mandating that any ballots associated with those voters be set aside until eligibility determinations could be completed, describing the measure as a narrow remedy necessary to protect federal statutory prohibitions against noncitizen voting.

California state officials and civil rights organizations challenged the administration's methodology, maintaining that the federal government's assessments relied on incomplete data sets and posed an immediate risk of disenfranchising lawfully registered citizens. Opponents further argued that federal authorities lack constitutional authority to mandate operational procedures for state-administered elections.

"After repeatedly losing in the lower courts, the highest court in the land firmly slapped down the Trump DOJ's baseless attack on California's electoral process, not even entertaining it," Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement following the ruling.

Attorneys representing voting rights groups also welcomed the order. "Every court to hear this case has now rejected the DOJ’s attempt to cast a cloud of suspicion over eligible voters’ ballots on the eve of an election," said Uzoma Nkwonta of the Elias Law Group.

The Supreme Court’s action leaves intact a Friday decision by the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled 2-1 against the administration. The majority opinion, authored by Circuit Judges Mark Bennett and Gabriel Sanchez, concluded that the executive branch could not unilaterally impose ballot-management rules on states without congressional authorization.

"The district court found that the risks that noncitizens are voting are, at best, uncertain, and also tempered by California's established voter-eligibility procedures," the 9th Circuit majority wrote. "In contrast, there is a material risk that granting the United States its requested relief would result in disenfranchisement."

In a dissenting opinion, Circuit Judge Patrick Bumatay argued that setting aside challenged ballots was the only viable way to prevent irreversible mingling with valid votes. "Throughout history, federal courts have acted to protect the voting and civil rights of our citizens by enjoining state action that violates the law," Bumatay wrote, adding that federal authorities possess a legitimate interest in safeguarding federal election integrity.

The rapid dismissal also aligns with the Supreme Court’s established "Purcell principle," a doctrine cautioning federal courts against altering state election rules shortly before voting concludes to avoid voter confusion and administrative disruption.