Ninth Circuit Rejects Federal Emergency Appeal Over California Mail-In Ballots

A three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has thrown out an emergency appeal filed by the federal government concerning California’s vote-counting procedures. The ruling came on Monday following an unusual Sunday hearing. The appellate panel determined that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the request, which sought to require California to set aside specific mail-in ballots until voter citizenship status could be verified.

The panel issued an unsigned per curiam order granting a request by the Los Angeles County registrar-recorder to dismiss the appeal. Judges concluded that the federal government created its own emergency by giving a trial judge just 15 hours to evaluate an expedited request for a temporary restraining order before filing an immediate appeal with the Ninth Circuit.

Disputes Over Election Deadlines and Ballot Processing

The legal dispute stems from actions taken by the Department of Homeland Security, which claimed in July that up to 190,000 noncitizens were on California’s voter rolls. However, federal officials waited until Oct. 15 to file a lawsuit attempting to stop the state from processing and counting approximately 20,000 votes.

Although the government initially requested a ruling by Nov. 3, U.S. District Judge David Carter scheduled a hearing for Tuesday afternoon in Los Angeles. On the evening of Oct. 21, government attorneys abruptly asked Judge Carter to decide by noon the following day, citing news that Los Angeles County had already processed 331,000 mail-in ballots since Oct. 5. An attorney representing Los Angeles County argued at the Sunday appellate hearing that federal officials were well aware that local officials were required to count early ballots under standard, publicized state schedules.

What This Ruling Means for Registered California Voters

For ordinary residents and registered voters in California, this appellate decision allows standard election procedures and ballot processing to continue uninterrupted. Voters registered in California are required to certify their U.S. citizenship when signing up to vote. Under the court’s ruling, local election officials will not be forced to sequester or separate tens of thousands of early ballots in the middle of an active election.

California Governor Gavin Newsom released a statement describing the appellate ruling as a positive outcome for constitutional processes. The ruling preserves state authority over how ballots are processed and counted under existing state laws.

Diverging Views Among Circuit Judges

The panel members authored separate opinions discussing the jurisdiction and merits of the challenge. U.S. Circuit Judge Mark Bennett, appointed by Donald Trump, noted that even if the appellate court held jurisdiction, the government was unlikely to succeed because federal criminal prohibitions under § 611 do not displace California’s constitutional authority to manage elections.

In contrast, U.S. Circuit Judge Patrick Bumatay, also appointed by Donald Trump, argued that the appellate court did have jurisdiction because the election was only 14 days away and delay created potential risks. Meanwhile, U.S. Circuit Judge Gabriel Sanchez, appointed by Joe Biden, emphasized that requiring state officials to suddenly isolate tens of thousands of ballots mid-election would create an unfeasible burden.

When voters or local election workers face uncertainty about voting rules, ballot challenges, or changing election procedures, speaking with a qualified attorney can provide clarity on legal rights and responsibilities.

This article is general information based on Courthouse News Service and court or agency records available at publication time. It is not legal advice; laws and deadlines differ by state and by case. Published October 27, 2026.