Sunday Ninth Circuit hearing puts Trump Justice Department’s California voting suit on a fast-moving schedule
Permanent article number: 102526020 Find another article by number
Original reporting and source documents
Open the reporting and original documents used for this article. These include evidence sources; not every link is necessarily the original claim being examined.
Evidence and accountability
Accountable person, organization or policy: Trump Justice Department
Documented issue under review: Uses an aggressive federal election-law push to force an accelerated appellate confrontation with California over alleged noncitizen ballots, creating immediate procedural pressure before the election.
This report has an independent editorial fact-audit recorded in the archive. Check the linked source documents below for the underlying evidence; where a case remains pending, allegations are not findings.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is set to hear arguments on Sunday, October 25, 2026, in the Trump Justice Department’s lawsuit against California over how the state handles vote-by-mail ballots tied to people the federal government says are likely noncitizens. The court’s calendar lists the hearing date, and ABC News has described the proceeding as rare. What is on the schedule, though, is argument—not a ruling, and not a judicial finding that the government’s allegations are correct. ([ca9.uscourts.gov](https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/calendar))
The dispute began with a DOJ complaint filed on October 15, 2026. In that filing, the Justice Department said it had determined that more than 20,000 people who are likely aliens are registered to vote in California and asked a court to stop the state from tabulating certain vote-by-mail ballots until citizenship can be verified. The department said it had sent California officials a list of more than 20,000 names and wanted the state to review the records before those ballots were counted. Those are the government's allegations, not established facts. ([justice.gov](https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/united-states-sues-california-after-determining-more-20000-likely-noncitizens-are))
California's Secretary of State responded on October 20, saying the administration had asked a federal court, 'without a shred of concrete evidence,' to require election officials to sequester ballots from people the federal government believes are likely noncitizens. The statement said the state had filed opposition to the DOJ's demands and argued that the case amounted to a reckless political stunt. It also pointed to Los Angeles County's review of a small sample of the federal data as evidence of accuracy problems with the government's claims. ([sos.ca.gov](https://www.sos.ca.gov/administration/news-releases-and-advisories/2026-news-releases-and-advisories/office-california-secretary-state-provides-update-us-doj-actions))
The practical issue in the case is narrower than the rhetoric surrounding it: whether a federal court should order California to isolate or hold back ballots while the parties fight over the reliability of the underlying list. The DOJ says its complaint is aimed at preventing unlawful voting and protecting election integrity. California says the requested remedy would risk disenfranchising eligible voters and rests on data that has not been shown to be reliable. The hearing on Sunday will test those competing positions on a compressed timeline, but it will not answer the factual dispute on its own. ([justice.gov](https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/united-states-sues-california-after-determining-more-20000-likely-noncitizens-are))
Comments
Read the discussion freely. Posting and voting require a verified member account. Every comment and reply is screened by AI before publication. Clear spam and abuse are blocked; only strongly cleared comments publish automatically, while uncertain drafts wait for moderator review. Civil factual disagreement alone is not grounds for rejection.
Log in to comment or join free to take part.
No comments yet. Be the first reasonably on-topic person here.