Biden Judge Blocks DOJ From Targeting 20,000 Suspected Noncitizen Ballots

U.S. District Judge Trina L. Thompson, a Biden appointee on the Northern District of California bench in San Francisco, granted an ex parte temporary restraining order late Friday blocking the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security from demanding that state and local election officials halt processing, segregate, or refuse to count ballots of registered voters the administration alleges are ineligible (primarily suspected noncitizens), or from threatening those officials with criminal prosecution for processing such ballots in line with state and federal law.

The order, issued yesterday, in Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, et al. v. United States Department of Justice, et al. responds to an emergency motion filed by SEIU, AFSCME, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), and the NAACP. It expires at 5 p.m. on November 16 unless extended. Defendants must respond by November 2, with a hearing set for November 13.

The TRO also requires the agencies to notify any state, county, or local officials who received prior letters that the demands and threats of prosecution are enjoined, and it orders the DOJ to report to the court on any pending search warrants, grand jury subpoenas, or related demands tied to lists of alleged ineligible voters.

Attorney Mike Davis highlighted the ruling in a post on X, stating that after “secretly meeting with Democrat operatives without even notifying the Trump Justice Department,” the judge “illegally orders DOJ and DHS to stop enforcing our federal election laws—granting amnesty to illegal voters.”

🚨

After secretly meeting with Democrat operatives without even notifying the Trump Justice Department, San Francisco Biden Judge Trina Thompson illegally orders DOJ and DHS to stop enforcing our federal election laws–granting amnesty to illegal voters.https://t.co/QGUgysZDk7 pic.twitter.com/dGR5LjtyTS

— 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 (@mrddmia) October 31, 2026

The motion was explicitly filed and granted on an ex parte basis under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b), meaning without prior notice to or opportunity for the DOJ and DHS to be heard—consistent with Davis’s point on lack of notification to the administration. The plaintiffs are major labor unions and civil rights organizations with longstanding Democratic Party ties.

However, the public court record and order reviewed by the Globe contain no details of any secret, off-the-record in-person meeting between the judge and Democratic operatives; the “meeting” characterization aligns with the closed, one-sided nature of the ex parte proceeding itself rather than documented private consultation outside the filings.

In the order, Judge Thompson wrote: “One of the hallmarks of a fair election is the freedom to exercise the right to vote free from threat, fear, or intimidation. Free exercise of the right to vote is a core tenet of our democracy. It requires safeguarding to ensure full participation and public trust in our elections. Election Day is around the corner. Ballots have already been issued. Americans have already begun voting. Workers have already begun processing ballots. Given the consequences of inaction, the Court sees no reason to delay its ruling.”

She further found the plaintiffs likely to succeed on claims that the agencies violated Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act by intimidating election workers, exceeded authority under the Elections Clause and Tenth Amendment (reserving election mechanics primarily to the states), and acted ultra vires or arbitrarily under the Administrative Procedure Act.

“Although Defendants claim that their actions are designed to halt unlawful voting by noncitizens, their actions are likely to have the effect of interfering with election administration and disenfranchising lawful voters,” the order states. It adds that election workers processing ballots in accordance with applicable law “do not violate federal criminal law even if a particular ballot belongs to a registered voter alleged by Defendants to be ineligible to vote.”

The ruling comes amid the Trump administration’s broader push to address noncitizen voting ahead of the November 3 midterms. The DOJ and DHS have flagged lists of registered voters (including roughly 20,000 in California) identified through federal data as likely noncitizens who received mail ballots under California’s automatic mailing system, and have warned officials they could face exposure as aiders and abettors if they knowingly process illegal ballots. Separate litigation by the DOJ seeking to require segregation of those ballots was recently denied by a Clinton-appointed judge, with the administration appealing.

Reminding election officials to follow federal law is a civic service, not a “threat.” They should welcome efforts to ensure that illegal votes by noncitizens do not cancel out votes by U.S. citizens. Many election officials work with DOJ. But a few would rather bury their heads… pic.twitter.com/q302WNv1W2

— Acting Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter (@PADAGMcCotter) October 31, 2026

Acting Deputy Attorney General R. Trent McCotter has indicated the DOJ is weighing an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in the related California ballot fight, with any filing expected before Election Day on Tuesday.

In a Saturday interview, McCotter told Fox News that the department is considering the Supreme Court step and that any such filing would come before Tuesday.

The California Globe has previously reported on the scale of the issue and related federal efforts, including the DOJ’s finding of more than 260,000 dead people and thousands of noncitizens on voter rolls across cooperating states, and ongoing cases involving illegal voting charges against foreign nationals in California, Nevada and elsewhere.

Those earlier accounts underscore the administration’s stated goal of protecting citizen votes from dilution by ineligible ballots while critics frame the same actions as intimidation. The TRO preserves the status quo of ongoing ballot processing pending further briefing. DOJ has not yet publicly detailed its next steps beyond the signals from McCotter regarding possible Supreme Court review.