On October 30, 2026, four days before the midterm election, U.S. District Judge Trina L. Thompson of the Northern District of California issued a temporary restraining order against the Justice Department, Attorney General Todd Blanche, the Department of Homeland Security and Secretary Markwayne Mullin (SEIU v. U.S. Department of Justice, No. 3:26-cv-12800-TLT, Dkt. 26). The plaintiffs, the Service Employees International Union, AFSCME, LULAC and the NAACP, sued on October 29. Thompson, a Biden appointee, CNN noted, found that the requirements for an order without notice to the government were met given how close the election is.
The eight-page order bars the defendants from any action that may “threaten, intimidate or coerce state or local elections officials or workers to demand that they halt processing the ballots of any registered voter solely on the basis that the ballot belongs to an individual alleged by [the administration] to be ineligible to vote,” as NBC News quoted it. They may not demand, on that basis alone, that any state or local official remove specific registered voters from the rolls, refuse to issue them ballots, or segregate or not count their ballots in the November 3 election, and may not threaten officials with prosecution for refusing those demands or for processing and counting ballots as state and federal law require. The order is not limited to California.
The defendants must tell every state, county or local government that received one of their letters about processing ballots, together with a list of allegedly ineligible voters, that the demands and threats in that letter have been enjoined. The Justice Department must also inform the court of any pending “search warrant applications, grand jury subpoenas, or other demands to access election materials or ballots” tied to those lists, CNN reported.
Thompson found the plaintiffs likely to succeed: the defendants “likely violated Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act” because the record shows they intimidated, threatened or coerced election workers, and they likely exceeded their authority under the Constitution's Elections Clause. She wrote that the defendants' “intimidation, threats, and attempts at coercion force election workers daily to choose between acceding to defendants' unlawful demands or adhering to their duties,” the Guardian reported. “When state and local government employees perform the work of distributing, processing, or counting ballots or otherwise administering the 2026 midterm election” in accordance with the law, “they do not violate federal criminal law even if a particular ballot belongs to a registered voter alleged by Defendants to be ineligible to vote,” she wrote, CNN reported.
The order's background section, drawn from the plaintiffs' filings, recounts the Justice Department's October 13 demand that California sequester about 20,000 ballots (see Supreme Court Rejects Trump Bid to Set Aside California Ballots Tied to a Disputed Federal List of About 20,000 Names), letters to county officials across California on October 23 that the complaint says were delivered by armed DHS officials, grand jury subpoenas, and an October 26 demand that Washington's secretary of state halt the processing of ballots. NBC News reported that the department wrote to election officials in 57 of California's 58 counties; a letter from First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli to San Bernardino County attached a list of “1133 likely aliens” and warned that the “legal consequences for either facilitating or ignoring federal crimes are significant.”
The order expires at 5 p.m. on November 16. The government's response to the request for a preliminary injunction is due at noon on November 2, and Thompson set a hearing for November 13. The Justice Department appealed to the Ninth Circuit on October 31, Democracy Docket and CNN reported. In a statement on its efforts against noncitizen voting, the department told the Guardian, “Federal law prohibits noncitizens from voting. Enforcing that law is not an agenda item. It is the Department's job.” The case is separate from DSCC v. Trump in Washington, where Chief Judge James Boasberg had not ruled as of October 30 (see Democratic Leaders Sue Trump, the Justice Department and DHS Over Threats to Prosecute Election Officials and Pressure to Purge Voters); the threats it addresses include those in The Justice Department Warned Election Officials in All 50 States They Could Be Prosecuted, Then Told Utah's Republican Election Chief She Is 'Under Investigation'.
Update (November 1, 2026): A Justice Department spokesperson criticized Thompson for ruling “without even waiting to hear from the United States” and said her decision was part of a “two-track system of justice” in which other federal judges have delayed the administration's “own urgent election claims” until after Election Day, the Los Angeles Times reported. “The Department is reviewing the order and evaluating all options,” the spokesperson said. The tracker found no report of Ninth Circuit action on the department's appeal or on any stay request as of November 1.
Trump criticized recent rulings in an October 31 post, writing, “Why would they reject fixing Election Fraud?” the BBC reported. The same day Gov. Gavin Newsom wrote to federal judges across California that he has “grave concerns federal agents will seek search warrants to seize ballots and ballot materials before the election results are certified,” and urged them not to grant such requests, the Los Angeles Times reported. That is Newsom's stated concern; the Times did not report that any such warrant had been sought.
Update (November 2, 2026): After the department asked on November 1 to stay the order pending its appeal, Thompson set a hearing for November 2, scheduled for 11 a.m. Pacific, Law Dork and Just Security reported. The tracker did not find the outcome of the stay motion, or any Ninth Circuit action, when this update was written. Plaintiffs' lawyer Danielle Leonard told the court, “It is the highest public interest to ensure that our election workers are protected,” Law Dork reported.
Democracy Docket reported that the department has argued the voter-intimidation provision Thompson relied on, Section 11(b), does not bind the federal government. Its account centers on the department's response in NAACP v. Blanche, a separate suit over federal law enforcement at polling places: “The conclusion that Section 11(b) does not apply to the federal government is confirmed by the statute's express enforcement mechanism.” It says the department made “a similar argument” in a suit by union members over threats to prosecute election workers, a description that matches this case, writing, “While Section 11(b) bars a 'person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise' from engaging in voter intimidation... it does not apply to the federal government.” Democracy Docket is an advocacy outlet founded by Marc Elias, whose firm represents plaintiffs in related election suits. The tracker has not read the filing.
At the hearing the department's lawyer also addressed its list of alleged noncitizens. The Los Angeles Times and CNBC, citing MS NOW, reported that he acknowledged a “high error rate.” Law Dork reported that Assistant U.S. Attorney Kenneth Kao, answering a question from Thompson, said it would be “fair” to characterize the list that way. CNBC reported that the lawyer also argued the errors show why election officials need to examine their rolls. Leonard reminded the court, Law Dork reported, that this case challenges threats against election workers rather than the list itself. The tracker has not seen a transcript. The Supreme Court denied the department's separate request in the California ballot case the same day (see Supreme Court Rejects Trump Bid to Set Aside California Ballots Tied to a Disputed Federal List of About 20,000 Names).