A federal appeals court panel expressed deep skepticism during a rare Sunday hearing over the Trump administration’s emergency request to force California election officials to set aside 20,000 ballots cast by voters whose citizenship is questioned by federal prosecutors.
During the hour-long session before the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Mark J. Bennett questioned how the executive branch’s demand aligns with the U.S. Constitution. Bennett noted that the state holds the authority to determine the manner of its elections under the Elections Clause, while Congress has not challenged that process.
“It seems to me that you want us to issue an injunction that is entirely inconsistent with the law the California Legislature has adopted pursuant to the Elections Clause,” Bennett told Justice Department attorney Matthew Donnelly. “How can we do that?”
Donnelly argued that the administration has good reason to believe the ballots belong to ineligible noncitizens and possesses the legal authority under separate federal criminal law to challenge their tabulation until state officials can prove otherwise. He asserted that both federal criminal law and state election law bar noncitizens from voting, but claimed “the problem is that California isn’t interested in enforcing that provision.”
The three-judge appellate panel featured Bennett and Judge Patrick J. Bumatay, both appointed by President Trump, along with Judge Gabriel P. Sanchez, an appointee of President Biden. The court did not issue an immediate ruling, though a decision is anticipated swiftly given the emergency nature of the appeal. Legal observers following the case indicated the panel appeared inclined to reject the administration’s position due to jurisdictional and constitutional hurdles.
Beyond the merits, Bennett questioned how the appellate court held jurisdiction when the lower district court had not yet assessed the facts or issued a formal order. He also raised concerns about ignoring claims from state election officials that complying with the administration’s demands in the final days before the November 3 election would cause catastrophic disruption before any lower court review.
California Deputy Solicitor General Samuel P. Siegel argued during the hearing that there was nothing for the appellate court to review given the absence of fact-finding or a lower court order. Siegel maintained that the administration’s demands were unconstitutional and that the appeal should be rejected outright for lack of jurisdiction. Seth Waxman, an attorney representing Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean Logan, joined in arguing that existing state processes require extraordinary proof for voter challenges, which the federal government had not provided.
Sanchez repeatedly pressed Donnelly on the provenance of the administration’s list of 20,000 voters, asking which third parties were involved in compiling the data. Donnelly was unable to answer, prompting Sanchez to note that the ambiguity raised questions regarding the list’s reliability.
The litigation stems from a Justice Department lawsuit filed on October 15 against California Secretary of State Shirley Weber and Logan. The action followed a 48-hour ultimatum issued by Acting Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter demanding that officials set aside ballots from the flagged voters. On Friday, the Justice Department sent similar letters to county election offices statewide, threatening criminal punishment if they refused to segregate the ballots.
State officials and independent legal experts have criticized the federal effort, pointing out that it breaks with longstanding Justice Department policy against intervening in elections within 90 days of a vote. Attorneys for California argued in court filings that the administration’s case relies on suspect data and “mere suspicion,” warning it threatens to disenfranchise thousands of legitimate voters. Logan noted that a preliminary review of a subset of the flagged voters showed many were born in the United States, unregistered, or had never voted.
First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli defended the federal government’s methods, claiming authorities possess overwhelming evidence that tens of thousands of noncitizens are registered in the state. Federal prosecutors in California recently charged 28 legal permanent residents with election-related crimes, including unlawful voter registration.
With more than 3 million ballots already cast across California—including over 500,000 in Los Angeles County—state attorneys emphasized that once mail ballots are removed from their envelopes or cast in person, separating individual votes becomes virtually impossible. The dispute marks the latest in a series of federal attempts to intervene in state-run elections ahead of the midterms, as courts nationwide continue to weigh challenges over voter rolls and citizenship verification procedures.
