Appeals Panel Questions Trump Administration Bid to Segregate California Ballots

A Ninth Circuit panel questioned the Justice Department’s emergency request to segregate ballots tied to a disputed list of roughly 20,000 potential noncitizens, ending a rare Sunday hearing without a ruling.

A federal appeals panel questioned the Trump administration’s attempt to secure immediate court intervention in California’s ongoing election during a rare Sunday hearing on October 25, 2026. The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ended the 105-minute session without issuing a ruling on the Justice Department’s request to segregate ballots associated with a disputed list of roughly 20,000 suspected noncitizens.

The emergency appeal is a new stage in the administration’s lawsuit against California, filed after state officials declined to act on the federal list as the Justice Department requested. The department argues that ballots cast by ineligible voters could become impossible to identify after they are counted with lawful ballots. California says federal officials have not established that the people on the list are noncitizens or that they voted illegally, and warns that changing ballot procedures after voting began could disrupt the election.

Judges question jurisdiction and timing

Judge Mark Bennett, one of two Trump appointees on the panel, repeatedly asked whether the appeals court had jurisdiction to intervene before the district court had held its already scheduled hearing. According to ABC News and Votebeat, Bennett noted that the lower court had set a hearing for Tuesday, October 27, and had said it would proceed quickly. The Justice Department asked the appeals panel to act before that hearing.

Bennett also focused on the Constitution’s Elections Clause, which gives state legislatures authority to set the manner of congressional elections while allowing Congress to alter those rules. He questioned whether a federal court could order California to change its election procedures when Congress had not directly imposed the ballot-segregation requirement sought by the executive branch.

Judge Gabriel Sanchez, appointed by former President Joe Biden, also appeared concerned about granting extraordinary relief at this point in the case. Judge Patrick Bumatay, the panel’s other Trump appointee, pressed California’s lawyer on whether officials would be able to determine later if ineligible ballots had been counted. His questioning appeared more receptive to at least part of the government’s position. Questions at oral argument do not establish how any judge will ultimately vote.

The 20,000-name list remains disputed

The administration describes the names as potential or likely noncitizens, not people conclusively proven to be ineligible. California and local election officials say the data may be outdated or inaccurate and includes lawful voters. Los Angeles County said 7,035 names on the federal list had county addresses. A preliminary review of a 200-name sample found that many records showed no voting history and that some individuals reported being born in the United States, an indicator of citizenship.

The Justice Department has separately announced charges against about 28 people from the broader list for alleged voting and immigration-related offenses, ABC News reported. Those individual cases do not establish the status of everyone else on the list. Both federal and California law prohibit noncitizen voting, but the parties disagree over whether the available evidence and legal authority justify a statewide court order while ballots are already being processed.

No ruling at the close of the hearing

The panel’s immediate task is procedural as well as substantive: it must decide whether it can and should act before the district court considers the request. Bennett said the panel would try to decide the case as quickly as possible. Until it issues an order, California has not been directed by the appeals court to segregate the disputed ballots.

The hearing materially advances a case first reported when the Trump administration sued California earlier in October. It provides the first public indication of how an appellate panel is evaluating the emergency request, but it does not resolve whether any listed voter is ineligible or whether the Justice Department is entitled to the relief it seeks. ABC News and Votebeat independently reported the hearing, the panel’s questions and California’s challenge to the list’s reliability.

Sources and image credit

Judges question jurisdiction and timing

The 20,000-name list remains disputed