In the days leading up to Tuesday’s midterm elections, several federal courts issued rulings rejecting efforts by the Trump administration to assert increased control over state voting procedures and to challenge the eligibility of thousands of California voters. These decisions collectively block attempts to force local elections officials and poll workers to segregate ballots flagged by the administration as potentially cast by noncitizens, and to use election activities as a means of immigration enforcement.

On Friday, U.S. District Judge Trina L. Thompson in Northern California granted a broad injunction requested by labor unions representing California election workers. The order prohibits the Trump administration from compelling workers to isolate ballots from questioned voters or threatening criminal penalties for noncompliance. In her ruling, Thompson emphasized the proximity of Election Day and the ongoing processing of ballots, underscoring the importance of maintaining election integrity and protecting workers from coercion.

The Justice Department criticized Thompson’s ruling for proceeding without hearing from the federal government and described it as part of a “two-track system of justice,” citing other courts that have postponed decisions in election-related cases until after voting concluded. The department indicated it was reviewing the order and evaluating potential next steps.

Governor Gavin Newsom expressed concern over potential federal interference, sending a letter to U.S. District Court judges in California urging them not to authorize search warrants to seize ballots or election materials before official results are certified. He highlighted the “stakes for democracy and the rule of law” as too significant for disruption.

Thompson’s injunction was one of several court actions in recent days blocking the administration’s request to immediately segregate approximately 20,000 ballots in California suspected of being cast by noncitizens. Federal judges, including those on the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, instead set schedules for further fact-finding after polls close. In a Washington, D.C. case, a judge ordered the administration to share its list of alleged noncitizen voters with advocacy groups, whose analysis found extensive errors and misidentifications of lawful voters.

A related ruling from U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguin in Oakland prohibited federal immigration agents from conducting field investigations in California and eight other states to identify noncitizen voters. The Ninth Circuit declined to rehear that ruling, effectively upholding it.

Legal challenges to the administration’s attempts have come from coalitions of states, local governments, and advocacy organizations focused on voting rights, labor, and immigration. Courts, including those with judges appointed by both President Trump and President Biden, have questioned the constitutionality of the administration’s intervention efforts, citing the risk of disenfranchisement and the importance of protecting a core democratic function.

In one Ninth Circuit ruling, the two-judge majority acknowledged there is a public interest in electoral integrity but found the evidence of noncitizen voting claims uncertain and insufficient to justify immediate ballot segregation. They noted that restricting ballots could endanger the entire election process in affected counties.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta praised the rulings as judicial checks on what he described as unlawful efforts to undermine elections. Leaders of labor unions representing election workers also hailed the decisions as victories for those administering elections and the communities they serve.

Despite claims by former President Donald Trump, including unsubstantiated assertions on social media about widespread illegal voting, the Justice Department did not pursue further appeals to lift the injunctions, missing deadlines to seek reconsideration or escalate the matter to the Supreme Court. Federal prosecutors involved in the cases have remained largely silent amid the mounting judicial setbacks.