A federal judge on Friday blocked the administration from threatening election workers with criminal prosecution over the counting of ballots cast by registered voters whom federal officials claim are ineligible. The emergency order, issued just four days before the midterm elections, prohibits federal pressure aimed at sidelining ballots based solely on allegations of ineligibility and forces the Justice Department to retract threats already sent to local officials.
U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson concluded that the Justice and Homeland Security departments likely violated the Voting Rights Act’s prohibition against voter intimidation and exceeded their constitutional authority over elections. Her temporary restraining order bars federal demands for states to remove registered voters, withhold ballots, or halt counting based exclusively on administration claims of ineligibility. It also prevents criminal prosecution threats against election workers who refuse those demands and instead process ballots according to established election laws.
Furthermore, Judge Thompson ordered prosecutors to disclose pending search warrant applications, grand jury subpoenas, and other demands linked to its lists of allegedly ineligible voters. Writing in her decision, the judge noted that the administration’s actions forced workers to choose between complying with unlawful demands or facing criminal prosecution for doing their jobs. High-ranking DOJ and DHS officials, she wrote, engaged in a coordinated campaign to intimidate, threaten, and coerce state and local employees administering the ongoing 2026 midterm elections.
The ruling arrives amid a broad federal campaign to secure voter records, investigate suspected noncitizen voting, and pressure state officials over election administration. Since May 2025, the DOJ has filed 31 lawsuits seeking sensitive voter records, resulting in 27 dismissals. In July, the department warned officials across all 50 states of potential criminal charges for knowingly allowing noncitizens to vote, and followed up on Thursday with nationwide letters warning of criminal penalties regarding election-record preservation requirements.
The Justice Department has defended its actions as necessary to enforce federal bans on noncitizen voting. Although the agency did not immediately respond to requests for comment following the ruling, a spokesperson previously stated that the government would not wait for a more convenient time to enforce election laws. Voting experts note that noncitizen voting in federal elections is already illegal and documented research shows the practice is rare.
Legal battles have intensified nationwide in the closing days of the election cycle. In California, the DOJ sued to set aside ballots from more than 20,000 voters suspected of being noncitizens, issued grand jury subpoenas, and threatened election workers; an appeals court rejected an emergency request from the government on Friday, warning of potentially catastrophic effects on the entire voting system. In Washington state, federal prosecutors demanded officials segregate ballots from over 400 voters, prompting Secretary of State Steve Hobbs to state that the federal list included U.S. citizens and was unreliable. In Arizona, prosecutors announced an investigation Friday evening into three Democratic-aligned registration groups following an undercover video publication, alongside a DOJ request for state and Maricopa County election officials to review registrations. In Alaska, the DOJ sued to delay certification if Republican Senator Dan Sullivan loses reelection and if votes for a similarly named candidate might have altered the outcome, while prosecutors also confirmed a criminal investigation into an alleged Democratic effort to recruit that alternate candidate.
In a separate ruling Friday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals maintained restrictions on Department of Homeland Security field operations involving known or suspected U.S. citizens across nine states through Election Day. Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín’s underlying order found that federal threats had already driven citizens to withdraw from electoral participation. The appeals court also questioned the timing of the government’s actions, noting that officials could have aggressively pursued investigations into past voter fraud well before the elections commenced.
