The Supreme Court on Monday refused to order California to set aside mail ballots from roughly 20,000 people the Trump administration has flagged as likely noncitizens, ending the Justice Department’s last-ditch bid to wall off those votes before Election Day, according to the Court’s docket and reporting from CBS News, Axios and the Associated Press.
The order, posted Monday in the case United States v. California, states that the government’s application for an injunction pending appeal was “presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court” and “is denied,” according to the Supreme Court’s docket. CBS News reported that the one-line, unsigned order carried no noted dissents and that the justices ruled without asking California officials to file a response.
BREAKING: Supreme Court rejects Trump's bid over California disputed ballots https://t.co/qtDCqUEOKG
— Axios (@axios) November 2, 2026
The Associated Press reported that the decision landed on the eve of the final day of voting in the midterm elections, which will decide control of Congress.
How the fight got here
Axios reported that the administration sued California in mid-October, arguing it had identified more than 20,000 noncitizens on the state’s voter rolls. CBS News reported that the government told state and Los Angeles County officials last month that ballots from those people should be set aside and not counted until their citizenship could be confirmed.
The courts below did not go along. CBS News reported that U.S. District Judge David Carter turned down the government’s request for a temporary restraining order last week and said the administration’s process for identifying alleged noncitizens was “rife with uncertainty and errors.” According to CBS News, the Justice Department went to the Supreme Court earlier Monday after a divided federal appeals court refused to order election workers to set the ballots aside.
Axios reported that judges have consistently rejected the administration’s argument, finding that its lists contain factual errors. Axios also reported that the administration framed its effort as a fight to ensure that eligible voters can vote and have their ballots counted, as the law requires. The White House and the Justice Department did not respond to Axios’ request for comment.
What it means for Tuesday
With the denial, flagged ballots will be handled under California’s normal rules. CBS News reported that more than 6 million mail ballots had already been returned to election offices across the state, which has more than 23 million registered voters, and that the administration had since sent lists of alleged noncitizens to officials in all 58 California counties demanding those ballots be set aside.
California election officials have argued that the federal list is unreliable and that eligible citizens could be disenfranchised if they complied, according to CBS News. The administration has argued that separating the flagged ballots until citizenship could be confirmed was a safeguard to keep illegal votes from diluting lawful ones, according to its filings as described by CBS News.
The ruling resolves only the emergency request. It does not decide whether any of the roughly 20,000 people on the federal list are in fact noncitizens, a question the courts have not answered. Monday’s order also does not end the underlying lawsuit, which remains on appeal, according to the Supreme Court docket.
For voters who worry that noncitizens are on California’s rolls, the outcome means the state’s own procedures, not a federal hold, will govern the count. Whether the administration’s list proves accurate is likely to become a fight after the votes are tallied.
Sources
Sources cited
- https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26a624.html
- https://www.axios.com/2026/11/02/supreme-court-california-voter-rolls-doj
- https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-rejects-trump-california-mail-ballots-alleged-noncitizens/
- https://apnews.com/article/midterm-elections-immigration-voter-fraud-trump-48998968a23a4af2f59eaea3dba4d2f3
Sources
- Original post: Axios (@axios) on X, Nov 2, 2026
Posts on X are shown as published by their authors; claims in them are attributed, not independently confirmed unless the article says so. If an embedded post does not load, these links open the originals.


