News Analysis · October 28, 2026

Federal Judge Rejects DOJ Bid to Set Aside California Ballots

Permanent article number: 102826041   Find another article by number

A federal court rejects an emergency request to segregate ballots based on alleged noncitizen status, emphasizing election disruption and uncertainty in the identification process. Confidence 3/5

Original article being examined

Published by: www.newsweek.com

Judge Denies DOJ Request to Halt Counting of California Ballots — Read the exact original

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

Archive transparency: this article has not yet completed the site's newer independent fact-audit process. Its source links are provided below. Do not treat allegations, commentary, or a rating as a legal finding.

Questions sent by Radical Reading Room

These requests have a recorded outbound message ID and send time. A request for comment does not establish that its recipient read the message.

U.S. Department of Justice — Public professional press contact
Question: What is the basis and method used by the Justice Department to determine that the approximately 20,000 individuals on the list are likely noncitizens?
Contacted: October 29, 2026 at 2:43 AM (server time).
Status: Response pending; no substantive response recorded.

No verified accountability finding This archive item is sourced reporting, not a finding that a claim is false or misleading.
Federal Judge Rejects DOJ Bid to Set Aside California Ballots

A federal judge on Wednesday denied the Justice Department’s request for an emergency order requiring California to set aside roughly 20,000 ballots tied to people the administration describes as likely noncitizens. U.S. District Judge David O. Carter issued the ruling in California. The department had asked the court to keep the ballots from being counted until voters’ immigration status could be checked.

The administration’s lawsuit accused California election officials of failing to review a list of about 20,000 names within a 48-hour deadline. The federal government alleged that the people on the list were likely noncitizens; the request sought to segregate their ballots while that status was verified. The ruling denied the requested intervention, rather than establishing that any listed person had voted unlawfully.

Carter said the proposed separation could disrupt an election already underway, create a chilling effect for election workers and voters, and discount votes cast by U.S. citizens. He also warned that counties would need new methods to sort ballots, risking confusion and disenfranchisement. The judge characterized the allegations as unproven and the identification process as uncertain and vulnerable to errors.

The decision leaves the administration’s request to halt or delay counting rejected. Carter said segregating ballots could cause lasting harm and that the public interest favored protecting voters and election staff. The Justice Department’s claim that the listed individuals were likely noncitizens remains an allegation; the ruling does not establish that they cast ballots unlawfully.

Reporting sources

Sources used for this report

These are the source links stored with this report when it was published. Open them directly to inspect the underlying reporting or primary document.

Reader action

Follow the court record

Read the filed complaint, order, or opinion and follow the docket as the case develops. Share the primary documents when explaining what the court has—and has not—decided.

This card only appears on stories where there is a concrete, lawful, worthwhile step a reader can actually take.

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.