Judge Bars DOJ From Threatening Election Workers Over Flagged Ballots

The order. On Friday evening, Oct. 30, U.S. District Judge Trina L. Thompson of the Northern District of California issued a temporary restraining order against the Justice Department, Attorney General Todd Blanche, the Department of Homeland Security and Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin. The case is Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, et al. v. United States Department of Justice, et al., No. 3:26-cv-12800 (order, ECF 26; docket). The plaintiffs are SEIU, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) and the NAACP. They sued on Thursday (complaint). The case was randomly reassigned to Thompson on Friday after the first judge recused himself.

The eight-page order opens: "One of the hallmarks of a fair election is the freedom to exercise the right to vote free from threat, fear, or intimidation." It adds: "Election Day is around the corner. Ballots have already been issued. Americans have already begun voting. Workers have already begun processing ballots. Given the consequences of inaction, the Court sees no reason to delay its ruling."

What it bars. Until 5 p.m. on Nov. 16, the order says DOJ, DHS and people acting with them:

1. "shall not threaten, intimidate or coerce state or local elections officials or workers to demand that they halt processing the ballots of any registered voter solely on the basis that the ballot belongs to an individual alleged by Defendants to be ineligible to vote";
2. shall not demand that any state or local election official "(i) remove specific registered voters from their statewide voter registration lists; (ii) refuse to issue ballots to specific registered voters; or (iii) segregate or otherwise not count any ballots" for the Nov. 3 election on that same basis;
3. shall not threaten officials and workers with criminal prosecution for refusing those demands; and
4. shall not threaten them with prosecution "for processing or counting ballots in the 2026 election in compliance with state and federal laws."

It also orders the agencies to tell every state, county or local government that received one of their ballot letters that "the demands and threats of prosecution ... have been enjoined." And it orders DOJ to tell the court about "any pending search warrant applications, grand jury subpoenas, or other demands to access election materials or ballots" tied to its lists of allegedly ineligible voters.

What it does not do. The order does not stop DOJ from investigating or prosecuting individual voters it believes voted illegally. It does not touch the federal list itself. The key word throughout is "solely": the limits apply to demands and threats based only on the government's allegation that a voter is ineligible.

Why she ruled. Thompson found the unions and groups likely to win on two grounds. First, she found DOJ and DHS "likely violated Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act," which bars intimidating or coercing people who help others vote, "because the record shows that Defendants intimidated, threatened, or coerced election workers." Second, she found they likely exceeded federal power under the Constitution's Elections Clause, which leaves the "counting of votes" and other election mechanics to the states. She wrote that, given the urgency, she did not need to analyze the plaintiffs' Fifth Amendment and Administrative Procedure Act claims "at this time." Her central legal statement: when election workers distribute, process or count ballots as their state and federal laws require, "they do not violate federal criminal law even if a particular ballot belongs to a registered voter alleged by Defendants to be ineligible to vote."

She ruled on the unions' emergency motion before DOJ had filed a response, finding that "immediate and irreparable injury" could happen first. DOJ must respond by noon Monday, Nov. 2. A preliminary-injunction hearing is set for Friday, Nov. 13, at 11 a.m. in San Francisco.

What led here. The order recounts the plaintiffs' account of the past few weeks. These are allegations at this stage. In mid-October, DOJ gave California's Secretary of State and Los Angeles County a list of about 20,000 registered voters it "believe[s]" are "likely" noncitizens and asked them to hold those ballots. When they refused, DOJ sued in Los Angeles. On Oct. 23, federal prosecutors delivered letters to county election offices across California; NBC News reported that 57 of the 58 counties got one, after Los Angeles got its letter earlier. The plaintiffs say armed DHS officers delivered them.

One of those letters is public. Santa Clara County's letter, from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California, lists 902 "likely aliens." It asks the registrar to commit "within 48 hours" to send DOJ each person's Social Security number, ID information and registration papers, and to "segregate-not cancel" ballots of anyone whose citizenship can't be confirmed. "The legal consequences for either facilitating or ignoring federal crimes are significant," it says. "If persons knowingly tabulate ballots cast by individuals identified by federal agencies as noncitizens, they risk becoming aiders and abettors to a federal crime." NBC reported that the letter to San Bernardino County, signed by Bill Essayli, the top federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, listed 1,133 people. The county said no, writing that its registrar "is legally prohibited from taking the actions requested."

Butte County's registrar, Keaton Denlay, posted his own account. He said a man "identifying himself as a Homeland Security Agent" hand-delivered the letter, which named 47 people and gave him 48 hours. Denlay said the list really had 45 unique names. Of those, 32 were not on the county's active rolls and were never sent ballots, and seven could not be matched with confidence. That left six. He said DOJ had not met California's legal burden for a challenge and that "there will be no further action taken at this time."

The Ninth Circuit, same day. Hours before Thompson ruled, a Ninth Circuit panel voted 2-1 to deny DOJ's emergency request for an order making California and Los Angeles County set aside the roughly 20,000 ballots while DOJ appeals Judge David O. Carter's ruling (United States v. California, No. 26-7231). Judges Mark Bennett, a Trump appointee, and Gabriel Sanchez, a Biden appointee, wrote that DOJ "has not made the required showing that such extraordinary relief, during an ongoing election, is clearly required by law." They added that "there is no feasible way to identify and segregate the ballots of specific individuals without potentially catastrophic effects on the entire system," and that DOJ's request is "simple only in the abstract." They assumed, without deciding, that DOJ has standing to sue. It was the panel's second ruling against DOJ in five days, after it dismissed the first appeal on Oct. 26. Carter's case is still headed for its own Nov. 13 hearing on the list's reliability (docket).

Washington state. On Oct. 26, the acting U.S. Attorney for Western Washington, Neil Floyd, and the First Assistant U.S. Attorney for Eastern Washington, Pete Serrano, sent Secretary of State Steve Hobbs a list of "over 400 individuals and over 1,500 total votes" (405 people, according to the Spokesman-Review). The letter asked election officials not to verify signatures on or count those ballots until citizenship was confirmed. It said that if the state didn't comply by Oct. 28 at noon, "the United States will have no choice but to seek emergency relief." Hobbs refused on Oct. 28. As of our check, we found no DOJ lawsuit against Washington over the list.