Supreme Court rejects Trump request to set aside ballots
The US Supreme Court declines to set aside thousands of Californian postal votes over unsubstantiated suspicions about voters.
Follow-up to: Trump asks Supreme Court to set aside 20,000 votes Monday, 2 November 2026, 18:15
Listen to this article
There is no audio version yet. Request one and an AI voice will read the article aloud.
Read by an AI voice.
The US Supreme Court on Monday declined to intervene in California’s election. Existing procedures for postal votes will therefore remain in force for now, despite a request from the Trump administration to set aside disputed ballots temporarily.
The Trump administration had asked the court to keep the ballots of around 20,000 people separate until their US citizenship had been verified. The Department of Justice had identified these people as suspected non-citizens on California’s electoral register. The court rejected the request without providing a detailed explanation, as often happens in emergency cases.
The ruling follows decisions by lower courts. A federal judge had previously rejected the request, after which the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit also declined to impose an interim measure. That court said the administration had not sufficiently shown that its intervention was legally and practically feasible. Two of the three judges also saw risks to eligible voters and to the orderly conduct of the count.
The scale of the dispute is probably smaller than the stated figure of 20,000. According to reporting by NPR, county checks showed that many people on the federal list did not have active registrations and had therefore not been sent a ballot. An analysis by researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles, also indicated that some of the names were not on California’s current electoral register and that naturalised Americans were included on the list.
According to Associated Press, California routinely sends registered voters a postal ballot. Associated Press reports that around 23 million people are registered in the state and that hundreds of thousands of ballots had already been processed. Election officials said identifying and setting aside the disputed ballots at the last minute would not be practically feasible without new procedures and additional risks to the count.
The Trump administration argued that this was merely a temporary administrative measure, allowing the citizenship of the voters concerned to be established later. California and Los Angeles County argued that the federal list contained errors and that separating the ballots could mean valid votes were not counted in time or at all. In their assessment, the lower courts gave particular weight to those concerns about feasibility and the rule of law.
The decision does not definitively establish whether the federal list is accurate, nor does it necessarily bring all proceedings surrounding the issue to an end. For this election, however, California’s existing processing of postal ballots remains in force. The ruling thus highlights the tension between federal attempts to check voter registration and the constitutional role of states in organising elections.
Also show the region and a close-up
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- The Supreme Court declined the requested emergency measure.
- The Trump administration wanted ballots cast by people on a federal list to be set aside temporarily.
- Lower courts had previously rejected the measure because of legal and practical objections.
- The reliability and precise size of the federal list are disputed.
Left
Arguments The federal government should not disrupt an ongoing election on the basis of an incomplete database. Protecting every valid vote and the autonomy of states outweigh unsubstantiated suspicions of fraud.
Values Access to the franchise, equal treatment and protection against abuse of power by the federal government.
Consequences Federal intervention could discourage eligible voters or cause their votes to be lost, undermining confidence in elections.
Centre
Arguments Voter registration must be checked reliably, but such checks must take place in good time, be verifiable and follow established procedures. The ruling leaves room for further investigation without altering the count just before the election.
Values Legal certainty, administrative feasibility and the division of institutional roles.
Consequences The decision prevents immediate disruption, but leaves an unresolved dispute over how federal and state authorities may check electoral data.
Right
Arguments The federal government must be able to prevent non-citizens from taking part in federal elections. On this view, temporarily setting aside suspicious ballots would not amount to exclusion, provided valid votes were counted later.
Values Enforcement of electoral laws, electoral integrity and federal responsibility for federal elections.
Consequences According to this view, the failure to intervene could leave risks of invalid votes in place and make federal oversight dependent on states that may refuse to co-operate.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The article’s central claim is directly confirmed by Associated Press and the Ninth Circuit’s official ruling. The text distinguishes between the Supreme Court’s decision, the earlier lower-court rulings and unsubstantiated claims about the electoral register.
- confirmed On 2 November, the US Supreme Court rejected a request to set aside thousands of Californian postal ballots. — Associated Press describes the Supreme Court’s rejection of the request. source
- confirmed The Trump administration linked around 20,000 names to suspected non-citizens. — AP cites the group of 20,000; the Ninth Circuit describes the federal list and the requested delay in counting. source
- confirmed The Ninth Circuit declined to impose an interim measure. — The official ruling says that the emergency measure was rejected. source
- confirmed The actual number of disputed ballots may be lower than 20,000. — NPR reports that many names did not have active registrations and did not receive a ballot. source
- confirmed California had around 23 million registered voters and had already processed hundreds of thousands of votes. — Associated Press gives both figures in the context of the feasibility of the intervention. source
Editor's note
It is certain that the Supreme Court rejected the Trump administration’s request on 2 November and that lower courts had previously blocked the same intervention. The precise number of ballots actually affected and the Supreme Court’s full reasoning have not been publicly set out.Sources
- Supreme Court rejects Trump administration push to set aside thousands of California ballots — Associated Press
- United States v. California, No. 26-7231 — United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- DOJ asks for Supreme Court to intervene on California ballot demands — NPR via WXXI News
The story so far
- Sunday, 1 November 2026, 19:45 US midterms to put Trump to the test
- Monday, 2 November 2026, 18:15 Trump asks Supreme Court to set aside 20,000 votes
- Monday, 2 November 2026, 19:47 Racist campaign heightens tensions in Michigan
- Tuesday, 3 November 2026, 00:44 Supreme Court rejects Trump request to set aside ballots (this article)
More on this in Dutch media
- NOS — „verenigde staten”
- Het Parool — „verenigde staten”
- Trouw — „verenigde staten”