Judge Boasberg Bars DOJ Ballot Demands on California Officials, Rejects Democrats' Wider Suit; Only Two States Got Letters, Filings Show

A federal judge in Washington on Monday barred the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security from issuing demands that California election officials set aside the ballots of voters on federal lists of suspected noncitizens. In a separate ruling the same day, the same judge turned away a broader lawsuit brought by national Democratic Party committees.

Chief U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg issued both rulings on the eve of Tuesday's midterm elections. The Digital Free Press read both opinions, which also disclose that, as of Oct. 31, the federal government had sent formal ballot-segregation demand letters to only two states: California and Washington.

What Boasberg's Order Bars

In the case brought by the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA) and a naturalized citizen, Pedro Trujillo, Boasberg ordered that the defendants are "preliminarily ENJOINED from issuing demands to California elections officials to compel the segregation of ballots, or other deviations from existing state elections procedures, based on voters' inclusion on the lists of suspected non-citizens." The plaintiffs must post a $1 bond by Wednesday.

According to the opinion, the federal government gave California county officials lists in October claiming at least 20,000 noncitizens on the state's voter rolls, and the Justice Department sent demand letters to all 58 counties. The department said the steps were needed to enforce the federal law that bars noncitizens from voting in federal elections.

Boasberg wrote that the executive branch "has a significant interest in election integrity and in enforcing federal law," but found that it likely violated the Constitution's Elections Clause, which gives states and Congress authority over election rules. "The President evidently believes that it would be good public policy for more stringent procedures to be put in place. No matter how strong that policy case may be, however, it does not justify overstepping the bounds of the Executive Branch's limited constitutional authority in this domain," he wrote.

He declined CHIRLA's broader request to bar the government from imposing itself on state election procedures, calling that wording vague. A separate Justice Department motion asking the court to sanction CHIRLA over its use of the voter list remains pending, the opinion says.

Democrats' Suit Fails on Standing

In the second case, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the Democratic Governors Association, the Nevada State Democratic Party, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and a California voter asked Boasberg to block the government from sending such demands to states. He denied the request, ruling that they had not shown standing.

The opinion says discovery in that case "revealed that the federal government has sent formal demand letters only to Washington and California." It describes an Oct. 26 letter that gave Washington officials a list of 400 people the government said were noncitizens and asked for a review within 24 hours. Washington officials said they would not comply.

The opinion also recounts, citing the Democrats' complaint and a Nevada official's email, that DHS first told Nevada that 15,903 potential noncitizens were on its rolls, later said 185 were "confirmed" noncitizens, and that Nevada found none of the 185 was a noncitizen. Those figures come from the plaintiffs' filings and the state's account.

Other Rulings on Election Eve

Also on Monday, the Supreme Court denied the Justice Department's emergency application asking it to order California to set aside more than 20,000 mail ballots, according to the court's docket. Roll Call described the order as "unanimous" and "unexplained."

In a separate case brought by election-worker unions, the ruling went the department's way. A divided Ninth Circuit panel on Monday granted the Justice Department's motion to pause an Oct. 30 order by U.S. District Judge Trina L. Thompson in San Francisco that had barred the department from making further ballot-sequestration requests and "threats" of prosecution.

As of Tuesday morning, the CHIRLA docket showed no notice of appeal.

Seeing election problems at your polling place? Contact The Digital Free Press at tips@thedigitalfreepress.com.

Sources: Memorandum Opinion, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights v. Department of Homeland Security, No. 1:26-cv-03072 (D.D.C.), Dkt. 48, Nov. 2, 2026 (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.296136/gov.uscourts.dcd.296136.48.0_2.pdf); Order, same case, Dkt. 47 (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.296136/gov.uscourts.dcd.296136.47.0.pdf); Memorandum Opinion, DSCC v. Trump, No. 1:26-cv-03674 (D.D.C.), Dkt. 34, Nov. 2, 2026 (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.297829/gov.uscourts.dcd.297829.34.0_1.pdf); Supreme Court docket, United States v. California, No. 26A624 (https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26a624.html); Order, SEIU v. U.S. Department of Justice, No. 26-7303 (9th Cir.), Nov. 2, 2026 (https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/11/02/26-7303.pdf); Roll Call, Nov. 2, 2026 (https://rollcall.com/2026/11/02/supreme-court-asked-to-intervene-in-california-ballots-case/). Cover photo: "E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Courthouse" by AgnosticPreachersKid, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons.