AI Generated Image
A San Francisco federal judge has ordered the Justice Department to stop threatening election workers with prosecution over voters it says are noncitizens, and to tell every official it warned that those threats are now off the table.
DOJ election threats aimed at county and state election workers are on hold after a federal judge in San Francisco issued a temporary restraining order on Oct. 30, four days before the Nov. 3 midterm election. U.S. District Judge Trina L. Thompson barred the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security from pressuring officials to pull, withhold or set aside ballots of registered voters solely because the government alleges they are ineligible, a campaign built largely on lists of people the department describes as likely noncitizens.
The order, in Service Employees International Union v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 26-cv-12800-TLT, N.D. Cal.), was sought by SEIU, AFSCME, the League of United Latin American Citizens and the NAACP. It runs until 5 p.m. on Nov. 16, carrying it through Election Day and the first weeks of counting.
What the order stops, and what it leaves alone
Each restraint turns on the word “solely.” When its only basis is its own allegation that a voter is ineligible, the government may not:
- Pressure to stop counting: threaten or coerce election workers to halt processing a registered voter’s ballot.
- Roll and ballot demands: demand that officials remove specific voters from statewide lists, refuse to issue them ballots, or segregate or decline to count their Nov. 3 ballots.
- Prosecution threats: threaten criminal charges against workers who refuse those demands, or who process and count ballots in line with state and federal law.
The department must also tell every office that received one of its letters that the demands and threats “have been enjoined,” and report to the court any pending search warrant applications or grand jury subpoenas tied to its lists of allegedly ineligible voters.
The order does not end investigations. Noncitizen voting in a federal election remains a federal crime, and for a green card or visa holder it remains a ground of deportability and inadmissibility under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The practical effect is to move the fight from blanket warnings to election workers toward individual, evidence-based cases.
Why Thompson found the letters likely unlawful
Thompson found the department “likely violated Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act,” which bars intimidating or coercing people who aid voting, and likely exceeded its authority under the Elections Clause, which leaves election mechanics to the states unless Congress acts. She did not reach the due process and Administrative Procedure Act claims.
The order traces the conduct behind the suit: Oct. 13 letters to California’s secretary of state and the Los Angeles County registrar demanding that ballots of about 20,000 registered voters the government believes are “likely” noncitizens be sequestered; Oct. 23 letters to California county officials threatening to prosecute any worker who processes an allegedly ineligible voter’s ballot, alongside grand jury subpoenas to the Los Angeles County election office; and an Oct. 26 letter pressing Washington to halt processing ballots of people on a department list. Thompson noted that some letters were “delivered by armed DHS officials.”
She wrote that the harm could reach tens of thousands of lawfully registered voters the government has labeled noncitizens. That is the weak point in the campaign: the department has not publicly explained how its lists were built, and Washington’s secretary of state has said his state’s list includes U.S. citizens.
The department argues the letters merely flag potential violations. “There is nothing about the actual transmission of the letter that forces the recipient to do anything,” department lawyer Christian Dibblee told Chief Judge James Boasberg in a separate case, Roll Call reported. Politico reported that the department did not immediately respond to a request for comment, and that on Oct. 29 it sent letters to election workers in all 50 states alluding to possible prosecution if records were not preserved.
A string of losses before Election Day
The ruling extends a run of losses. A divided Ninth Circuit panel refused to make California set aside the 20,000 ballots, and in a Washington, D.C., case brought by Democratic leaders, Boasberg ordered the department to name the states it had warned and said he planned to rule by Monday, Nov. 2, according to the Associated Press.
Restraining orders are usually not appealable, though the government can argue this one works as an injunction, so an emergency request to the Ninth Circuit is possible. The larger question is Nov. 16. A preliminary injunction would carry the limits into post-election certification fights; without one, the department regains room to press officials as counting ends.
Dates to watch
- Nov. 2, noon: the government’s opposition to a preliminary injunction is due; Boasberg’s ruling in the D.C. case is also expected that day.
- Nov. 3: Election Day.
- Nov. 5, noon: the plaintiffs’ optional reply is due.
- Nov. 13, 11 a.m.: preliminary injunction hearing before Thompson in San Francisco.
- Nov. 16, 5 p.m.: the restraining order expires unless extended or replaced.
This article is for general information and is not legal advice.
Sources
- Order Granting Temporary Restraining Order, SEIU v. U.S. Department of Justice, No. 26-cv-12800-TLT (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2026)
- Politico, “Judge orders DOJ to stop threatening to prosecute election officials” (Oct. 30-31, 2026)
- Roll Call, “Judge orders Justice Department to disclose noncitizen voter letters” (Oct. 29, 2026)
- Associated Press, “Judge presses the Trump administration for details on its campaign to stop noncitizens from voting” (Oct. 29, 2026)
About the Author
