Judge bars Justice Department from threatening election workers with prosecution over processing ballots

The Justice Department on Saturday, Oct. 31, filed a notice of appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals from a federal judge's order barring it and the Department of Homeland Security from threatening state and local election workers with criminal prosecution over processing ballots in the 2026 election.¹² U.S. District Judge Trina L. Thompson of the Northern District of California signed the temporary restraining order Friday, Oct. 30, the same day the plaintiffs asked for it. It expires at 5 p.m. on Nov. 16.³²

The plaintiffs in Service Employees International Union v. U.S. Department of Justice, No. 3:26-cv-12800, are the SEIU, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the League of United Latin American Citizens and the NAACP. The defendants are the two departments, Attorney General Todd Blanche and Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin.⁴

What the order bars

Thompson issued the order before the government responded, citing the Nov. 3 election. It says the defendants and those working with them:³

• shall not "threaten, intimidate or coerce" state or local election officials or workers to stop processing a registered voter's ballot solely because the government alleges the voter is ineligible;
• shall not demand, on that basis alone, that officials remove specific registered voters from voter lists, refuse them ballots, or segregate or not count their ballots in the Nov. 3 general election;
• shall not threaten officials and workers with prosecution for refusing such demands, or for processing or counting ballots in compliance with state and federal election law;
• must tell any state or local government that received a letter about ballot processing or a list of allegedly ineligible voters that the demands and threats in it have been enjoined;
• must inform the court of any pending search warrant applications, grand jury subpoenas or other demands for election materials or testimony tied to such lists.³

Thompson wrote that election workers who process or count ballots as state and federal law requires "do not violate federal criminal law" even if a ballot belongs to a voter the government alleges is ineligible. She found the plaintiffs likely to succeed under Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution's Elections Clause. The government must respond by noon Monday, Nov. 2; a preliminary injunction hearing is set for Nov. 13.³

The department's position

In a notice filed Friday, the department said it would seek to dissolve or modify the order or, alternatively, appeal it, and asked that any motion be decided "immediately." Saturday's notice of appeal gives no grounds.⁵¹ ABC News reported Friday that it had sought the department's comment.⁶

The complaint, filed Thursday, Oct. 29, quotes Oct. 23 letters the department delivered to California county officials as saying that people who "knowingly tabulate ballots cast by individuals identified by federal agencies as noncitizens" risk becoming "aiders and abettors to a federal crime." It also quotes Bill Essayli, first assistant U.S. attorney for the Central District of California, telling Fox News on Oct. 21 that if California helps noncitizens on its rolls vote, "they are now aiding and abetting a criminal offense."⁴

The complaint says each letter, delivered by DHS officers, carried part of a federal list of about 20,000 California voters the government says are "likely" noncitizens, and alleges the letters are part of an effort to intimidate election workers. It says U.S. District Judge David O. Carter of the Central District of California on Oct. 28 rejected the department's motion to make Los Angeles County pull those ballots from processing.⁴³

What the records do not show

• The docket shows no 9th Circuit ruling and no filed motion to dissolve the order as of Oct. 31.²
• No government filing yet responds to the merits of the plaintiffs' claims.²
• The record does not show how many letters or grand jury subpoenas were issued or to which counties.³