A federal judge has barred the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security from threatening state and local election workers with criminal prosecution just days before the United States midterm elections.
US District Judge Trina L. Thompson, of the Northern District of California, issued a temporary restraining order on Friday evening, October 30, 2026, blocking the federal agencies from pressuring election officials over ballots cast by voters the administration alleges are ineligible to vote. The order runs until November 16, covering Election Day on November 3 and the counting and certification period that follows it.
The judge found that the plaintiffs, a coalition of labour unions and civil rights groups, had shown they were likely to succeed on their claim that the administration’s campaign violated the Voting Rights Act. She said the order was justified given how close the election is.
What happened
The case was brought by the Service Employees International Union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the League of United Latin American Citizens and the NAACP. They challenged a series of recent federal demands and threats directed at the officials who run elections in the states.
In her order, Judge Thompson wrote that senior Justice Department and Homeland Security officials had engaged in what she described as a campaign to intimidate, threaten and coerce the officials administering the 2026 midterm election.
“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,” she wrote.
The judge, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, also ruled that election workers who process and count ballots in line with state and federal law do not break federal criminal law, even if a particular ballot belongs to a registered voter the administration alleges is ineligible.
What the order bars
While the order is in place, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security may not threaten, intimidate or coerce state or local election officials or workers in order to make them halt processing the ballots of any registered voter solely because the administration alleges that voter is ineligible.
The agencies also may not demand that officials remove specific voters from statewide registration rolls, refuse ballots to specific voters, or segregate ballots cast in the midterms, based solely on the administration’s lists of alleged ineligible voters.
In addition, the order bars threats of criminal prosecution against election officials who refuse those demands, or who process and count ballots in accordance with election law. It also requires the administration to tell the court about any pending search warrant applications, grand jury subpoenas or other demands to access election materials or ballots connected to its lists of allegedly ineligible voters.
The Justice Department had no immediate comment on the ruling, according to Reuters, while CNN said it had reached out to the department for comment.
Background: the California and Washington disputes
The ruling is the latest court setback for the administration’s election oversight push, and it connects directly to disputes already playing out in California and Washington state.
The Justice Department’s earlier order to California counties over ballots from suspected noncitizens required counties to set aside mail ballots from people the federal government said might not be citizens, and to check their citizenship within 48 hours. That earlier order is the subject of its own ongoing litigation, and a federal appeals court has already rejected the administration’s demands in the California case, ruling that the administration does not have the right to intervene in how states verify citizenship status.
In California, the department also sent letters to county election officials threatening criminal prosecution for workers who helped process a ballot cast by a voter the government claimed was ineligible. One letter to an official in San Bernardino County attached a list of 1,133 people described as likely noncitizens registered to vote in the county.
In Washington state, the administration sent a similar letter on October 26, identifying more than 400 voters it said might be noncitizens and asking the secretary of state to halt processing their ballots until citizenship was confirmed.
Central to the administration’s efforts is a data-matching operation led by the Department of Homeland Security that compares state voter lists with federal records. Election officials say the resulting lists of suspected noncitizens are unreliable and include US citizens, a dispute that several judges are now examining in separate cases.
The Justice Department has also sent letters to 29 states and Washington, DC, threatening investigations and demanding that they preserve records and voter data from the 2024 election, even though federal law already requires jurisdictions to preserve election records for 22 months.
Why it matters
The midterms on November 3 will decide control of Congress, where Republicans currently hold narrow majorities in the House of Representatives and the Senate. Voting is already well under way: US early voting has already passed 43 million ballots, and the campaign’s final days have been intense: Barack Obama campaigned in Ohio and Michigan; JD Vance has campaigned for the Kansas Senate race; and Trump’s $1 million reward for voter-fraud tips has drawn its own controversy.
Against that background, the judge’s order matters for two practical reasons. First, it removes, for now, the threat of prosecution hanging over the local officials who actually handle ballots — the people who decide, under state law, whether a ballot is processed, counted or set aside. Second, it draws a line the administration must respect while votes are being counted: federal claims about a voter’s eligibility, on their own, are not enough to stop a registered voter’s ballot from being processed.
Critics, including Democratic and some Republican election officials, have described the administration’s moves as federal overreach into an area the Constitution largely leaves to the states. The administration, for its part, says stricter measures are needed to ensure election security and public confidence in the vote. The judge’s order does not settle that wider argument — it is a temporary measure, not a final ruling on the merits of the case.
What the order does not decide
It is important to be clear about the limits of Friday’s ruling. It is a temporary restraining order, not a final judgment. It does not decide whether any particular voter is or is not a US citizen, and it does not stop the government from investigating or prosecuting individual voters it believes voted unlawfully.
What it stops is a specific kind of pressure: using prosecution threats and demands based solely on the administration’s own lists to force election officials to change how they handle registered voters’ ballots. Further court proceedings will determine what happens when the order expires on November 16.
Timeline
- October 22, 2026: A Justice Department letter to a San Bernardino County official attaches a list of 1,133 people described as likely noncitizens registered to vote.
- October 23, 2026: The Justice Department sends letters to California county election officials threatening criminal prosecution for workers who process ballots of voters the government claims are ineligible.
- October 24, 2026: The Justice Department orders California counties to set aside mail ballots from suspected noncitizens for citizenship checks.
- October 26, 2026: The administration sends a similar letter to Washington state, identifying more than 400 voters and asking officials to halt processing their ballots.
- October 29, 2026: Labour unions and civil rights groups file their challenge in the Northern District of California.
- October 30, 2026: Judge Trina L. Thompson issues the temporary restraining order on Friday evening.
- November 3, 2026: Midterm Election Day.
- November 16, 2026: The temporary restraining order is set to expire.
Frequently asked questions
Who issued the order?
US District Judge Trina L. Thompson of the Northern District of California issued the temporary restraining order on Friday, October 30, 2026.
What does the order stop the Justice Department from doing?
It stops the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security from threatening election officials with prosecution, and from demanding that they remove voters, refuse ballots or segregate ballots based solely on the administration’s lists of alleged ineligible voters.
How long does the order last?
The order is set to expire on November 16, 2026, after Election Day and into the counting and certification period.
Does the ruling mean noncitizens can vote?
No. The order does not decide whether any individual voter is a citizen, and it does not stop the government from investigating individual voters. It blocks prosecution threats and demands aimed at election officials based solely on the administration’s eligibility claims.
Why did the judge act so close to the election?
Judge Thompson said the plaintiffs had shown they were likely to succeed on their claims, and that the public has a strong interest in election officials being able to carry out their work under federal and state law with the election only days away.
What happens next?
Further court proceedings will decide what happens when the temporary order expires. The administration may also respond to the ruling or seek to challenge it, and the underlying dispute over the voter lists continues in other cases.
Related coverage
This ruling follows the Justice Department’s earlier order to California counties over ballots from suspected noncitizens, and sits alongside the Justice Department’s Alaska Senate lawsuit, another election-related case. For the wider midterm picture, see our coverage of how Barack Obama campaigned in Ohio and Michigan, how JD Vance has campaigned for the Kansas Senate race, Trump’s $1 million reward for voter-fraud tips, and the fact that US early voting has already passed 43 million ballots. More stories like this can be found in our US News section.