All news articlesNMC RESEARCH
CategoryPolitics
RegionsUSA
ContinentsNorth America
DossiersTrump
AI-generated editorial illustration based on the published article topic; not a documentary photograph.

US Supreme Court rejects Trump bid to set aside California ballots

Loading statistics…

The justices denied an emergency request to hold back postal ballots from people identified by federal officials as likely non-citizens, leaving California’s existing counting procedures in place.

Review information is loading.

The court acted on 2 November, the day before the US midterm elections, without explaining its decision. By 30 October, 47.9 million Americans had already voted in the midterms.

The Trump administration said it had identified more than 20,000 people who appeared to be registered in California when the voter information was obtained and whom it believed were likely not US citizens. That figure does not establish how many cast ballots or how many were ineligible to vote.

The Justice Department asked California to set aside any postal ballots from people on the list until their citizenship could be checked. It argued that, once the ballots were mixed with others, they could not be retrieved. Voting by non-citizens in federal elections is illegal and rare, according to Reuters, citing studies and state audits.

California disputed the reliability of the list. District Judge David O. Carter, who rejected the administration’s earlier request on 28 October, said the government had not provided an error rate or validation against a reliable benchmark. He also warned that the proposed measure could disrupt the election and affect eligible citizens.

The Ninth Circuit appeals court rejected an emergency request by a two-to-one vote on 30 October. The majority shared concerns about the list and the burden on election officials. Dissenting Judge Patrick Bumatay said temporarily separating the ballots was justified and would allow time to verify eligibility.

The Supreme Court’s decision concerned temporary relief during an appeal; it did not settle the underlying case or determine the eligibility of individuals on the list.

Sign in to give this article a thumbs up or down.

About this discussion and AI questions

Private test discussion. Comments are readers’ views and are not yet automatically fact-checked. Editing is available for 60 seconds after posting.

Sign in with a confirmed reader account and choose a username to read comments and participate.

Sorting applies to top-level comments; replies remain oldest first. New comments and likes can change the order. Refresh for the current ranking.

Loading comments…