A federal judge on Monday, November 2, 2026, ordered the Trump administration to stop pressing California election officials to set aside ballots cast by voters on a federal list of suspected noncitizens, delivering a major election-eve ruling one day before voters choose the next Congress. Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, sitting in Washington, granted a preliminary injunction in a case brought by the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA) and a naturalized U.S. citizen, finding that the government's effort to impose new ballot-counting procedures through threats of criminal prosecution was unconstitutional.

The ruling lands at the most sensitive possible moment: with millions of ballots already cast in California and the November 3 midterm elections hours away. It is the latest in a rapid series of courtroom setbacks for the administration's California ballot campaign, following refusals by two other federal judges and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the days before. On the same day, the administration took a parallel fight to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to order California to segregate roughly 20,000 mailed ballots — a request that remains pending as voters head to the polls.

Key Points

• Chief Judge James Boasberg on Monday, November 2, 2026, granted a preliminary injunction barring the government from demanding that California segregate ballots based on inclusion on federal suspected-noncitizen lists.
• Boasberg held that the administration's attempts to impose new ballot-counting procedures through threats of criminal prosecution of state election officials are unconstitutional, and that California may decide its own voter-citizenship verification procedures.
• The judge found the federal lists flawed, including many people wrongly listed as noncitizens — a finding that echoes an independent analysis showing 42% of about 20,930 flagged names matched no one on California's current voter file.
• The order covers the Department of Homeland Security and bars demands to California officials to compel ballot segregation or other deviations from existing state election procedures based on the lists.
• The ruling does not end the wider fight: the Justice Department asked the Supreme Court on Monday to order segregation of about 20,000 mailed ballots, after lower courts refused the same request.

What Happened

Boasberg's order, issued Monday, enjoins the Department of Homeland Security from issuing demands to California election officials seeking to compel the segregation of ballots, or other departures from the state's existing election procedures, based on a voter's inclusion on lists of suspected noncitizens. The case, filed in September by CHIRLA and a naturalized citizen, challenged a federal campaign to press California and other states to compare voter rolls against federal databases in search of alleged noncitizen voters.

Reuters reported the ruling on Monday evening, quoting Boasberg's central holding: "California may decide for itself what procedures to use for verifying the citizenship of registered voters. The Executive Branch lacks authority to unilaterally impose its preferred procedures." The Associated Press account of the order, carried in election-eve coverage, quoted the same core finding in sharper terms: the government's "attempts to impose new procedures for counting ballots, through threats of criminal prosecution of state election officials, is unconstitutional."

That language matters because it goes beyond the practical question of whether these particular ballots should be set aside. Boasberg is ruling on the method the administration used — federal demands backed by the threat of prosecution — and on who gets to decide how a state verifies its voters. Under the Constitution, the opinion holds, that choice belongs to California, not to a federal agency acting on its own.

The injunction is preliminary, not a final judgment on every claim in the case. But its practical effect on the eve of the election is immediate: California officials can continue processing and counting ballots under the procedures already in place, without a federal instruction to pull aside the ballots of people named on the disputed lists.

Background and Context

The dispute began with a federal list of more than 20,000 people whom the Trump administration identified as suspected noncitizens registered to vote in California. The Justice Department sent the list to California on October 12 and sued the state on October 15, seeking to force officials to set the flagged ballots aside. California officials pushed back, arguing that the demand arrived far too close to the election, with millions of ballots already cast, and that the list itself was riddled with errors.

An independent analysis filed in court on October 31 by the UCLA Voting Rights Project, working for CHIRLA, gave that objection numbers. Of the 20,930 names the Justice Department called likely noncitizens, 8,880 — about 42% — matched no one on California's current voter file. The analysis also identified at least 22 confirmed U.S. citizens and 66 more people highly likely to be citizens, and noted that the list lacked voter identification numbers and contained duplicates and incomplete data. The Justice Department disputed the analysis and, in a Sunday filing, asked Boasberg to consider contempt action against CHIRLA and its lawyers over its publication — a request that itself became part of the case's heated final weekend.

The courts have now rejected the segregation demand at every level it has reached so far. On October 28, U.S. District Judge David O. Carter refused to order California to set the ballots aside, warning that the request would "wreak havoc" on the state's election and violated longstanding principles giving states control over their elections. On October 30, a divided panel of the 9th Circuit rejected the Justice Department's emergency bid to force segregation. On the same Friday, U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson in San Francisco issued a temporary restraining order barring federal officials from threatening election workers with prosecution and from demanding that they segregate ballots, purge voters or halt ballot processing. Thompson's order runs until November 16.

Boasberg's own role in the case predates Monday's ruling. On October 30, he ordered the government to give the plaintiffs the list of more than 20,000 alleged noncitizen voters, and earlier he had ordered the Justice and Homeland Security departments to identify every state where, since July 1, federal officials had sent formal communications asking election officials to remove specific voters, refuse them ballots or segregate their ballots. In Friday filings, the Justice Department identified California and Washington under its reading of that order, while Homeland Security separately named California, Nevada, Pennsylvania and New Jersey as states where it had sent letters raising concerns about potential noncitizens on the rolls.

California Ballot Ruling: Why the Lists Were Central

Boasberg's finding that the lists were flawed is the factual hinge of the ruling. A segregation order only makes sense if the list reliably identifies the ballots to be segregated. If, as the UCLA analysis found, more than four in ten flagged names match nobody on the current voter file, and some of the people who do match are citizens, then pulling ballots aside on the basis of the list risks disenfranchising lawful voters while doing nothing to improve the accuracy of the count.

That risk is why California officials and voting-rights groups framed the case as one about lawful voters, not about the principle that only citizens may vote — a principle no party in the case disputes. Noncitizen voting in federal elections is already illegal, and the question before the courts has never been whether it should be allowed. It has been whether the federal government, days before an election, can compel a state to change how it counts ballots on the basis of a list whose accuracy is in serious dispute.

The administration's position, as set out in its court filings and in its Supreme Court application on Monday, is different. It argues that once the challenged ballots are mixed in with lawful ones, there is no way to retrieve them, and that California's refusal to segregate them therefore risks allowing unlawful votes to be counted. That argument persuaded one 9th Circuit judge, who dissented from the October 30 refusal and called the request reasonable — but it has not persuaded a majority of any court to act on it so far.

The scale of the dispute also matters for context. California is the nation's most populous state, and its ballots include millions of mailed votes cast well before Election Day. A last-minute change to how those ballots are handled — segregating tens of thousands of them, verifying them under new procedures, and potentially litigating each one — is exactly the kind of disruption Carter warned would "wreak havoc" when he refused the request on October 28.

Reactions and Quotes

Boasberg's own words carry the ruling. "California may decide for itself what procedures to use for verifying the citizenship of registered voters," he wrote, adding: "The Executive Branch lacks authority to unilaterally impose its preferred procedures." On the prosecution threats, he held that the government's "attempts to impose new procedures for counting ballots, through threats of criminal prosecution of state election officials, is unconstitutional."

Voting-rights advocates treated the order as a victory for voters whose citizenship had been questioned on thin evidence. Democracy Docket, which has tracked the litigation closely, called the order a major victory for voters and noted that Boasberg is the second judge to tell the administration it cannot threaten election officials or pressure states to set aside ballots cast by suspected noncitizens.

California officials have consistently argued that there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the state and no right for the federal government to interfere with its election procedures. Attorney General Rob Bonta has made that case in public statements throughout the dispute, and county officials have pointed to the practical problem at the heart of the case: when a federal list names people who are not on the voter file, or who are citizens, there is nothing reliable for a county to act on.

The Justice Department has not accepted that account. It maintains that its lists were compiled using state voter registration information and federal citizenship databases, and it has challenged the UCLA analysis as irrelevant to the standing of the particular plaintiffs in the case. Its Sunday filing seeking possible sanctions against CHIRLA and its lawyers, and its Monday appeal to the Supreme Court, show an administration determined to keep pressing the issue even as lower courts rule against it.

Why It Matters

For California voters, the ruling removes a cloud that hung over the final days of voting: the prospect that ballots could be pulled aside, delayed or challenged on the basis of a disputed federal list. For election officials, it removes the threat that following state law could expose them to federal prosecution — the precise pressure Thompson's order and now Boasberg's injunction are designed to lift.

For the country, the ruling is a test of a much larger question that will outlast this election: how far can a presidential administration go, in the closing days of a campaign, to reshape how states run their elections? The administration's broader campaign has not been limited to California. Federal letters went to election officials in all 50 states on October 29 warning them to preserve ballots and records for 22 months and noting criminal penalties for willful violations of federal record-keeping law. The Justice Department says those letters are separate from the voter-specific demands at issue in the California case, but voting-rights groups read the whole pattern as a single pressure campaign.

For the courts, Monday's ruling adds a third judicial voice — after Carter and Thompson — saying the same thing in different words: states run their elections, and the federal government cannot rewrite their procedures by demand letter. That consensus across three judges, in two states and two circuits, will weigh heavily if the Supreme Court takes up the administration's emergency application.

What Happens Next

The immediate next step is the Supreme Court. The administration asked the justices on Monday to order California to set aside the roughly 20,000 mailed ballots, arguing that commingling them with lawful ballots would make them unrecoverable. Justice Elena Kagan is expected to handle the initial emergency application, and the Court could act quickly — or decline to intervene on the eve of the election, leaving the lower-court rulings in place.

California's certification deadline is December 11, which gives the state time to count and certify its results under existing procedures. If the Supreme Court declines to act, the Boasberg injunction and Thompson's restraining order will govern how the flagged ballots are handled through that process.

Beyond California, watch whether the administration extends the same list-based demands to other states named in Friday's filings — Washington, Nevada, Pennsylvania and New Jersey — and whether courts in those states follow Boasberg's reasoning. US News Pulse will follow the Supreme Court's response and California's certification as the midterm results come in.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did Judge Boasberg order on November 2, 2026?

He granted a preliminary injunction barring the Department of Homeland Security from demanding that California election officials segregate ballots, or deviate from existing state procedures, based on voters' inclusion on federal lists of suspected noncitizens.

Why did the judge call the administration's demands unconstitutional?

Boasberg held that imposing new ballot-counting procedures through threats of criminal prosecution of state election officials is unconstitutional, and that California — not the executive branch acting alone — decides its own voter-citizenship verification procedures.

How many ballots were at issue in California?

About 20,000 mailed ballots, corresponding to a federal list of more than 20,000 people identified as suspected noncitizens registered to vote in California. An independent analysis found 42% of 20,930 flagged names matched no one on the state's current voter file.

Does this ruling decide whether noncitizens voted?

No. It decides how California must handle the disputed ballots and whether the federal government can compel segregation on the basis of these lists. Noncitizen voting in federal elections is already illegal, and that principle was not in dispute.

What happens at the Supreme Court now?

The administration asked the Supreme Court on Monday to order California to set the ballots aside, after lower courts refused. Justice Elena Kagan is expected to handle the initial emergency application, and the Court may act before or after Election Day.

Related coverage: Trump takes California ballot fight to Supreme Court on eve of midterms, DOJ urges contempt review over California noncitizen voter-list analysis, Trump Reflecting Pool closing speech on midterm eve.