The Supreme Court refused to let DOJ set aside about 20,000 California mail ballots, and the department dropped the case Nov. 6. A Seattle judge has barred demands on Washington state, while a Boston judge keeps the Postal Service rule blocked.
The Supreme Court refused on Nov. 2 to let the Justice Department set aside about 20,000 California mail ballots. The department dropped its lawsuit on Nov. 6, and a federal judge in Los Angeles closed the case on Nov. 10, writing that the suit tried to "disrupt an ongoing election and create confusion and uncertainty."
The fight has moved to Washington state, where a Seattle judge barred DOJ and Homeland Security on Nov. 5 from demanding that officials set aside ballots or threatening prosecution. A Boston judge still blocks the Postal Service's ballot-mail rule, and a Washington, D.C., judge vacated the department's voter-list policy on Oct. 9.
Why it matters
If the order ever takes effect, whether your mail ballot arrives could depend on a federal database instead of your state's voter roll.
Get next Monday's: one short email a week. Free. Unsubscribe in one click.
Questions about this story
Free account needed to ask — your question is kept and asked for you right after sign-up. Answers are public.
No questions yet — be the first to ask.
Key Indicators
23
States suing
Twenty-three states plus Washington, D.C., are the original plaintiffs challenging the order in Boston federal court.
6-3
Supreme Court vote, Aug. 24
Justices let most of the order take effect but left the Postal Service ballot-verification rule blocked in a companion case.
9
States where DHS probes halted
A federal judge in California stopped election-related investigations in nine states. A Ninth Circuit panel on Oct. 30 kept that hold in place until after Election Day.
20,000+
California ballots contested
Mail ballots the Justice Department sought to have California set aside. The Supreme Court refused to intervene on Nov. 2, and DOJ dismissed the suit on Nov. 6.
42%
Flagged names not in voter file
A UCLA analysis filed Oct. 31 found 8,880 of the 20,930 names on DOJ's California list do not match the state's current voter file. It also found at least 22 U.S. citizens on the list.
Nov 18
Washington hearing
Judge Jamal Whitehead will consider a longer injunction in the Washington ballot case. His temporary order expires Nov. 19.
6
Court losses for DOJ
Two injunctions, a First Circuit ruling, a summary judgment, a Ninth Circuit refusal, and a Supreme Court denial in the California ballot case.
32 events
Latest: Yesterday
Showing 8 of 32
JK to step
Tap a bar to jump to that date
Jump to
November 2026
Judge closes California ballot case, rebukes DOJ
LatestLegal
U.S. District Judge David Carter canceled future hearings and wrote that the lawsuit "attempted to disrupt an ongoing election and create confusion and uncertainty for voters and election workers alike."
DOJ drops California mail-ballot lawsuit
Legal
The department voluntarily dismissed its suit after the Supreme Court and lower courts refused to let it set aside the ballots. State officials said about 9 million ballots had been processed.
Judge bars DOJ demands on Washington ballots
Legal
Judge Jamal N. Whitehead issued a temporary restraining order barring DOJ and DHS from demanding that Washington officials set aside specific ballots or threatening prosecution. It expires Nov. 19.
Ninth Circuit allows DOJ requests, not demands
Legal
A panel reinstated a ruling that the government may ask a state to set ballots aside but may not compel it, drawing a line between requests and demands.
Supreme Court denies DOJ request on California ballots
Legal
The justices denied an emergency application to let DOJ set aside about 20,000 mail ballots. No justice noted a dissent.
October 2026
UCLA analysis finds 42% of flagged California names not on voter file
Legal
Two UCLA Voting Rights Project data analysts filed the analysis in a lawsuit with CHIRLA. It found 8,880 of 20,930 names are not in the current voter file and at least 22 are U.S. citizens. The U.S. attorney in Los Angeles called it "bogus."
DOJ says it will probably appeal to the Supreme Court
Statement
Acting Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter told Fox News DOJ would "probably" appeal the California ruling to the Supreme Court. He acknowledged the California list could include U.S. citizens.
Appeals court upholds ruling on California ballots
Legal
A federal appeals court rejected DOJ's request to set aside the disputed ballots, citing a material risk of blocking eligible citizens from voting. The same day, another federal judge barred DOJ from intimidating election workers who process those ballots.
Ninth Circuit keeps nine-state DHS probe hold until after Election Day
Legal
A Ninth Circuit panel ruled that federal investigations into illegal voting by noncitizens will stay on hold in nine states until after Election Day.
DOJ acknowledges noncitizen-voter letters to five states
Statement
A Justice Department document seen by Reuters shows letters to election officials in California, Washington, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Nevada saying it identified noncitizens on their voter rolls.
Federal judge refuses to let DOJ block 20,000 California ballots
Legal
The judge said blocking the ballots would wreak havoc on the Nov. 3 election and questioned whether the government's list is reliable.
Appeals court rejects DOJ bid to segregate California ballots
Legal
The Ninth Circuit ruled 2-1 against the Justice Department's demand that California set aside about 20,000 mail ballots from voters it says are noncitizens. California officials had refused the 48-hour order, which led to the suit.
DOJ asks Washington to set aside ballots from 400 voters
Legal
In a letter to Secretary of State Steve Hobbs, the Justice Department asked Washington to set aside any ballots received from more than 400 people it alleges registered without U.S. citizenship. The request followed a similar demand in California.
Judge halts DHS noncitizen-voting investigations in nine states
Legal
A federal judge in California restricted the Department of Homeland Security from election-related investigations in California, Connecticut, Georgia, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin, finding error-prone government lists could pull U.S. citizens into the effort.
Democrats sue Trump and DOJ over voter-roll pressure
Legal
Democrats filed suit in Washington, arguing the administration is unlawfully interfering with the midterms by pressuring states to remove voters, and asking a court to bar the government from purging legally registered voters or denying them ballots.
Judge vacates DOJ voter-list policy
Legal
Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan set aside the department's Voter List Maintenance Policy, finding it exceeded statutory authority and violated privacy and paperwork laws. DOJ has asked the appeals court to pause the ruling.
DOJ asks appeals court to stop counting contested California ballots
Legal
The Justice Department asked an appeals court to intervene in its suit seeking to temporarily block California from counting more than 20,000 mail-in ballots from voters the administration says are likely not U.S. citizens.
Judge dismisses DOJ suit against Utah voter database
Legal
U.S. District Judge David Barlow, a Trump appointee, dismissed the Justice Department's suit against Utah Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson with prejudice. He ruled Utah's voter database falls outside Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960, the law DOJ invoked. It was the department's 27th straight district-court loss in the voter-roll campaign.
September 2026
Utah refuses to purge rolls using the federal database
Statement
Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson said Utah would not remove voters from its rolls based on the citizenship database the administration built, even after the Supreme Court let the program go forward.
August 2026
Postal Service publishes final ballot-mail rule
Regulatory
The rule, published in the Federal Register, requires election officials to submit mail-ballot envelope designs for federal review, add unique barcodes to outbound and return envelopes, and upload each voter's name, mailing address and barcode to a federal portal. The agency said it would not check voters' citizenship or eligibility.
Two dozen states sue over the Postal Service rule
Legal
About two dozen Democratic-led states filed a new lawsuit hours after the rule was published, arguing the Postal Service gave itself authority to regulate mail voting in federal elections.
Judge blocks expanded Postal Service role in companion case
Legal
Judge Talwani granted summary judgment in a companion case, keeping the Postal Service from enforcing Trump's ballot-verification rule even after the Supreme Court let other parts of the order move ahead. She wrote that with less than 90 days before the midterms, changing election rules now would be unsafe.
DOJ presses Supreme Court to rule quickly
Statement
Solicitor General D. John Sauer tells the justices it is critical they act soon on the stay request, which has been fully briefed for more than a week.
Former judges and governors urge the Court to keep the block
Legal
Fifty-six former state and federal judges and 26 former governors from both parties file briefs asking the Supreme Court to deny the stay and leave the injunction in place.
Boston court blocks Postal Service rule for 14 days
Legal
The District of Massachusetts granted a temporary restraining order in State of California v. USPS and League of Women Voters v. Trump, barring the Postal Service from implementing the rule's envelope standards, portal enrollment and ballot verification provisions for two weeks.
July 2026
A dozen GOP-led states back Trump's Supreme Court bid
Legal
Missouri leads Alabama, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and Texas in filing their own emergency application asking the justices to let the order take effect.
DOJ says it will review options
Statement
The Justice Department says it is reviewing all options and remains confident the order will ultimately be upheld.
DOJ asks Supreme Court to lift the block
Legal
The Justice Department files an emergency application, Trump v. California, No. 26A124, asking the Supreme Court to stay the First Circuit's injunction before the midterms. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who handles emergency appeals from the First Circuit, denies an immediate stay and gives the states until August 3 to respond.
Appeals court upholds the block
Legal
The First Circuit rejects the administration's effort to enforce the order, keeping state-run voter rolls and mail-ballot systems in place while litigation continues.
June 2026
District judge blocks the order
Legal
Judge Indira Talwani grants a preliminary injunction, halting the order for the November election in the states that sued.
March 2026
Trump signs the voter-list order
Executive Action
The order directs U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Social Security Administration to build a national list of eligible voters, and tells the Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to people on it.
States sue in Boston
Legal
Officials from 23 states and Washington, D.C., file suit, arguing the Constitution gives states and Congress, not the president, the power to set election rules.
Scenarios
1
Supreme Court takes the case
Possible
Resolves by Jul 26, 2027
Discussed by: The Justice Department, which said it is reviewing all options; legal reporters at The Washington Post and CBS News
The administration asks the Supreme Court to lift the injunction or hear the case. Given the constitutional stakes over who controls election rules, the justices could take it up. A grant would move the fight from Boston to Washington and set a national precedent rather than one limited to the 23 suing states.
2
Order stays blocked through the midterms
Deadline passed (Nov 3, 2026)
Discussed by: Fortune and ABC News, reporting that the injunction covers the November 3 election in the suing states
Litigation continues, but no court lets the order take effect before Election Day. Voters in the suing states keep using existing state registration and mail-ballot systems for the November 3 midterms. This is the status quo the appeals court ruling preserves.
3
Courts strike the order down for good
Possible
Resolves by End of 2027
Discussed by: Plaintiff state officials arguing the order exceeds presidential power under the Constitution's Elections Clause
On the merits, the courts rule that the president lacks authority to create a national voter list or restrict mail-ballot delivery, powers the Constitution assigns to states and Congress. A final judgment against the order would end it permanently, not just pause it. The administration would need new legislation from Congress to pursue similar changes.
4
Higher court revives the order
Unlikely
Resolves by End of 2027
Discussed by: The Justice Department, which said it is confident the order will ultimately be upheld
The Supreme Court or the full First Circuit reverses the injunction and lets the administration begin building the federal voter list. Federal agencies would start compiling the citizenship list, and mail-ballot delivery could be tied to it. This is the outcome the DOJ has predicted.
5
Supreme Court rules on the emergency stay before Election Day
Deadline passed (Nov 3, 2026)
Discussed by: Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who told the justices it is critical they act promptly
The justices are weighing the Trump administration's request to lift the First Circuit's injunction while the underlying lawsuit continues. A ruling could come within days given how close the case is to November 3. Either way, it would only decide whether the order applies to this fall's election, not end the lawsuit.
6
Purcell principle fight reaches the Supreme Court
Deadline passed (Nov 3, 2026)
Discussed by: CNN Politics, reporting on the Aug. 24 ruling's implications
The Court's decision to let most of the order take effect with the midterms near could open a fight over the Purcell principle, the idea that courts should not change election rules close to Election Day. The administration's July appeal did not raise Purcell, so a later ruling could set up a showdown over the doctrine.
7
Appeals court or Supreme Court revives the Postal Service ballot check
Deadline passed (Nov 3, 2026)
Discussed by: The Justice Department, which said it is reviewing its options
After the Aug. 24 ruling let most of the order take effect, the administration may appeal the companion case that keeps the USPS verification rule blocked. Courts often hesitate to change mailing rules with an election close, so revival before Nov. 3 looks unlikely.
8
More states refuse to use the federal citizenship database
Deadline passed (Nov 3, 2026)
Discussed by: Utah Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson, who said her state would not purge its rolls with it
The Supreme Court's August ruling lets the administration build and share citizenship lists, but it does not force states to use them. Utah has said it will not. If several more states follow, the practical effect of the list on this fall's election shrinks even though the program survives in court.
9
Appeals court halts the count of contested California mail ballots
Unlikely
Resolves by Nov 30, 2026
Discussed by: The Justice Department, which asked an appeals court to intervene
The Justice Department wants an appeals court to stop California from counting more than 20,000 mail ballots it says were likely cast by noncitizens. Courts usually resist changing counting rules mid-election, so an order before the ballots are tallied would be unusual.
10
Supreme Court asked to pause California ballot ruling before Election Day
Deadline passed (Nov 3, 2026)
Discussed by: Acting Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter, who said DOJ would "probably" appeal
DOJ could ask the Supreme Court to let it set aside the roughly 20,000 California ballots before Nov. 3. The lower courts have rejected that bid and cited the risk of blocking eligible voters, so a grant before Election Day looks unlikely.
11
Judge extends Washington ballot order past Nov. 19
Possible
Resolves by Nov 19, 2026
Discussed by: Judge Jamal N. Whitehead's temporary restraining order and the Nov. 18 hearing in OneAmerica Votes v. Trump
Whitehead's order bars DOJ and DHS from demanding that Washington set aside specific ballots. It expires Nov. 19 unless he grants a longer injunction at the Nov. 18 hearing.
Historical Context
3 moments from history that rhyme with this story — and how they unfolded.
1 of 3
June 2013
Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona (2013)
Arizona required proof of citizenship to register using the federal voter form. The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that federal law overrode the state's added requirement for federal elections.
Then
Arizona could not reject federal-form registrations for lacking citizenship proof.
Now
The case set a marker for how federal and state authority divide control over voter registration rules.
Why this matters now
Both fights turn on the same question the current case raises: who sets the rules for registering and casting a ballot.
2 of 3
December 2000
Bush v. Gore (2000)
A recount dispute in Florida reached the Supreme Court, which halted the count and effectively decided the presidential election. The ruling came just weeks after Election Day.
Then
George W. Bush won Florida and the presidency by 537 votes.
Now
It showed courts can shape election outcomes and drew lasting attention to how ballots are counted.
Why this matters now
It is a reminder that election-administration disputes can land in the highest courts on tight timelines, as this one may.
3 of 3
June 2013
Shelby County v. Holder (2013)
The Supreme Court struck down the formula requiring certain states to get federal approval before changing voting rules. The 5-4 ruling freed those states to alter election procedures on their own.
Then
States covered by the formula no longer needed federal preclearance.
Now
It shifted power over voting rules back toward the states and away from federal oversight.
Why this matters now
The current order pushes in the opposite direction, toward federal control, and the courts are again drawing the line between state and federal power over elections.
