Federal Judge Blocks DOJ Election Threats

A federal judge in California has barred the Justice Department from threatening election workers with prosecution days before the November 3 midterm elections, in an emergency order the department appealed on Saturday.

SAN FRANCISCO — United States District Judge Trina Thompson issued a temporary restraining order late on Friday, October 30, blocking the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security from pressuring state and local election officials over ballots the federal government claims may have been cast by ineligible voters.

The order, in the case Service Employees International Union v. U.S. Department of Justice, is the first to legally bar such threats, according to Democracy Docket, which first detailed the ruling. Other judges hearing related challenges had urged the department to stop, but Thompson went further and made the ban a court order.

“One of the hallmarks of a fair election is the freedom to exercise the right to vote free from threat, fear, or intimidation,” Thompson wrote. “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.”

The judge found that the groups bringing the case had shown the department’s threats likely violate federal law and the Constitution and are “interfering with the lawful administration of elections.” She described the intimidation and prosecution threats as contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious.

What the judge ordered

The order bars the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security from threatening, intimidating or coercing state and local election officials or workers to demand that they halt processing the ballot of any registered voter solely because the government alleges that voter is ineligible.

It also bars the departments from demanding that officials remove specific registered voters from the rolls, refuse to issue them ballots, or segregate or refuse to count their ballots on that basis alone. And it bars threats of criminal prosecution against election workers for refusing those demands, or for processing and counting ballots in line with state and federal law.

The departments must also tell state, county and other local governments that received the relevant federal letters that the demands and prosecution threats have been enjoined. The order further requires the government to disclose pending search warrant applications or grand jury subpoenas connected to its voter lists.

How the dispute reached court

The lawsuit was brought by labour unions and civil rights organisations that represent election workers, including 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 filed the case on Thursday, October 29, and Thompson ruled the following evening.

Earlier in October, the Justice Department had demanded that California officials set aside ballots associated with about 20,000 registered voters whose eligibility the administration questioned, and it made similar demands of Washington state, where about 405 ballots were at issue. California officials disputed the reliability of the government’s list.

On Wednesday, October 28, another federal judge rejected the department’s request to force California to separate the disputed ballots. On Friday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals also rejected an emergency request from the department on the same question, finding insufficient grounds for intervention.

That same Friday, the Justice Department asked a federal judge to force Alaska to preserve and segregate ballots that could be affected by alleged voter confusion in the state’s U.S. Senate race, which features two candidates with nearly identical names. The department also sent letters to all state election chiefs telling them to preserve ballots and other election records, and warning that wilful violations of a federal record-keeping law can carry criminal penalties.

Thompson’s order does not decide the underlying lawsuit, and it does not rule on the eligibility of any individual voter. A temporary restraining order is an emergency measure designed to preserve the position until a fuller hearing can take place. It is not a final judgment on the merits.

Why it matters days before November 3

The ruling lands in the final weekend of a midterm campaign in which control of Congress is at stake. All 435 seats in the House of Representatives and 35 Senate seats are on the ballot on Tuesday, November 3, and tens of millions of Americans have already voted early.

Election officials across the country are already processing mail ballots, and several states count ballots that arrive after Election Day if they were postmarked in time. Any interruption to that processing, the judge indicated, could affect voters who have done nothing wrong beyond appearing on a disputed federal list.

Critics of the administration have accused it of trying to cast doubt on the results before votes are counted. The White House has rejected that charge, saying the president is focused on a free and fair election.

What happens next

The Justice Department appealed Thompson’s order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Saturday, October 31. An appeal does not automatically suspend a temporary restraining order, and the order remains in place unless an appeals court changes it.

Under the schedule set by Thompson, the government must respond to the request for a longer preliminary injunction by noon on Monday, November 2. The plaintiffs may reply by noon on November 5, and a hearing is scheduled for November 13. The restraining order itself runs until 5 p.m. on November 16, unless a later court action extends, modifies or replaces it.

NationWire will follow the appeal and the November 13 hearing, alongside live results as votes are counted after November 3.

Frequently Asked Questions

• What did the judge actually block?
  The Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security may not threaten, intimidate or coerce election officials to halt processing ballots, remove voters, refuse ballots or segregate ballots solely on the basis of an alleged ineligibility claim, nor threaten prosecution for refusing those demands.
• Who brought the case?
  Labour unions and civil rights groups, including the Service Employees International Union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the League of United Latin American Citizens and the NAACP.
• Does the order apply outside California?
  The order is not limited to California counties in its operative provisions and has been reported as appearing to apply nationwide, although the Justice Department is appealing it.
• How long does the order last?
  Until 5 p.m. on November 16, 2026, unless a later court action changes it. A hearing on a longer injunction is scheduled for November 13.
• Does this decide whether any voter is ineligible?
  No. It is a temporary emergency order, not a final ruling on the merits or on any individual voter’s eligibility.
• When is Election Day?
  Tuesday, November 3, 2026.

References & Further Reading

• Democracy Docket — “Judge orders DOJ to stop threatening election officials”
• Reuters via The Leaders Online — “US judge bars DOJ from intimidating election officials over non-citizen voting claims”
• NPR / WHRO — “Week in Politics: Trump’s Midwest pivot; sharper Democratic messaging”
• NPR / WHRO — “Politics, norms and the DOJ’s unprecedented pre-election headlines”

Related coverage: a record 47.9 million Americans have already voted early in the 2026 midterms, President Donald Trump restored his Kansas and Iowa rallies for the final midterm Sunday, and more in our US politics coverage.