A federal appeals court in the United States has rejected the Trump administration’s request to intervene in a lawsuit against California and immediately order the state to set aside as many as 20,000 mail-in ballots allegedly provided to noncitizens.
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled 2-1 on Monday that the case was not ready for appellate consideration because a lower court had not yet examined the administration’s claims.
The three-judge panel declined to allow the Justice Department to bypass the district court and fast-track the case, noting that the lower court had not been given an adequate opportunity to consider the matter.
In the ruling, Judge Mark J. Bennett, appointed by President Donald Trump, joined Judge Gabriel P. Sanchez, appointed by former President Joe Biden, in rejecting the administration’s request.
The judges said the Justice Department had failed to allow the lower court sufficient time to consider the case before seeking emergency intervention from the appeals court.
A hearing before the district court was scheduled for Tuesday.
The ruling did not determine the merits of the administration’s allegation that the ballots had been provided to noncitizens. Instead, it addressed whether the appeals court should intervene before the lower court had considered the case.
The decision followed an emergency hearing on Sunday, during which the judges questioned a government lawyer about the justification for asking California to screen the ballots and the urgency claimed by the administration.
The judges also expressed concern that an eleventh-hour court order, issued just days before the midterm elections, could disrupt California’s election preparations.
They noted that such intervention could interfere with the state’s ability to administer the election and raise concerns under the legal principle that courts should generally avoid changing election rules close to voting day.
The lawsuit forms part of the Trump administration’s broader efforts to pressure California to assist federal investigations into alleged voter fraud and examine the security of its voter registration procedures.
Although the appeals court’s decision represents a setback for the administration’s immediate legal strategy, the underlying lawsuit remains unresolved.
The district court is expected to consider the administration’s claims before any further appeal can proceed.