The Radical Reading Room

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on October 26, 2026, dismissed the Justice Department’s appeal in United States v. State of California for lack of jurisdiction and denied the government’s emergency motion for injunctive relief pending appeal as moot. The court’s disposition did not decide the underlying merits of whether California may count the disputed ballots; instead, it held that the appeal came too early because the district court had not yet had enough opportunity to consider the government’s request for temporary relief. The panel’s published opinion is dated October 26, and the court’s case page lists the hearing date as October 25. ([cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov](https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/10/26/26-7070.pdf?utm_source=openai))

The dispute arose after the United States filed a request for temporary restraining order relief on October 21, 2026, seeking to stop California officials from processing ballots the government says were tied to about 20,000 “likely” noncitizens on the voter rolls. AP reported that the district court had scheduled an October 27 hearing on the issue, and that the federal government then went to the Ninth Circuit before that hearing took place. Those dates matter because the appellate court’s ruling turned on procedure and timing, not on a final merits determination about the ballots themselves. ([apnews.com](https://apnews.com/article/ed14390afb8af8fde1c2d0f6a90a0761?utm_source=openai))

In its opinion, the court separated the government’s allegations from any finding on the merits. The United States alleged that California automatically mailed vote-by-mail ballots to registered voters even after being informed that some names on the rolls were “likely” noncitizens. The panel did not accept those allegations as proven facts in the appeal; rather, it concluded that the emergency posture did not give the district court enough time to resolve the request first. The published disposition therefore dismissed the appeal and left the district court proceedings to continue. ([cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov](https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/10/26/26-7070.pdf?utm_source=openai))

AP’s reporting said Judges Mark Bennett and Gabriel Sanchez concluded the government had rushed into appellate court after waiting until weeks before the election to file suit and after ballots were already being processed. Judge Patrick Bumatay dissented, saying the federal government had an interest in protecting the integrity of federal elections. Those descriptions track the published opinion’s procedural posture and the split on whether emergency relief should issue, but the operative holding remained jurisdictional: dismissal of the appeal, with the motion for injunctive relief denied as moot. ([apnews.com](https://apnews.com/article/ed14390afb8af8fde1c2d0f6a90a0761?utm_source=openai))

The practical effect was to leave the ballot dispute in the district court, where a hearing had already been set for October 27, 2026. The appellate ruling did not end the case, but it did reject the administration’s attempt to obtain immediate emergency relief from the Ninth Circuit before the lower court had ruled on the TRO request. ([apnews.com](https://apnews.com/article/ed14390afb8af8fde1c2d0f6a90a0761?utm_source=openai))