Cascade of court rulings rebuffs Trump administration's election efforts

LOS ANGELES — In a cascade of rulings in the days before Tuesday's elections, federal judges have rejected the Trump administration's efforts to wrest control over state voting processes, pressure state and local elections officials into complying with their demands and turn the midterm vote into another opportunity for immigration enforcement.

In Northern California late Friday, U.S. District Judge Trina L. Thompson granted labor unions representing California poll workers a sweeping order barring the Trump administration from an array of election-related actions, including demanding that those workers set aside ballots from voters whose eligibility the administration has questioned, and threatening them with criminal sanctions if they refuse to do so.

"Election Day is around the corner. Ballots have already been issued. Americans have already begun voting. Workers have already begun processing ballots," Thompson wrote. "Given the consequences of inaction, the Court sees no reason to delay its ruling."

A Justice Department spokesperson criticized Thompson for ruling "without even waiting to hear from the United States," and said her decision was part of a "two-track system of justice" in which other federal judges have delayed the Trump administration's "own urgent election claims" until after election day.

"The Department is reviewing the order and evaluating all options," the spokesperson said.

The ruling followed three others — one in district court in Los Angeles and two in the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals — in which federal judges blocked the administration's effort to force California elections officials to immediately set aside the ballots of 20,000 voters the administration alleges may be noncitizens, instead setting a schedule for more fact-finding in the case after polls close.

It followed a ruling in a separate case in Washington, D.C., in which a federal judge demanded that the Trump administration turn over its list of alleged noncitizen voters to advocacy groups, including the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles. Data analysts from the UCLA Voting Rights Project wrote in court Saturday that their review of the provided list found it "contains extensive errors" and includes citizens and thousands of others who are not on California's voter list.

And it came about the same time as a decision late Friday by the full 9th Circuit not to reconsider a ruling by a smaller three-judge panel upholding an earlier ruling by U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguin in Oakland. She had barred federal immigration agents looking for noncitizen voters from conducting door knocks, street stops and other field interviews in California and eight other states.

The administration's losses — in cases with broad scope and real implications in an election that will determine control of Congress — are the result of legal challenges from a coalition of liberal states such as California, localities such as Los Angeles County, and immigration, voting rights and labor groups.

But they are also the product of a bipartisan stable of federal judges — including appointees of President Donald Trump — who have described the administration's efforts as unconstitutional and a threat to one of the most core functions of American democracy.

Those judges weighed that threat against the alleged threats to election integrity from noncitizen voters that the Trump administration claimed, and found the former to be greater than the latter.

"To be sure, there are countervailing public interests at stake. There is a public interest in maintaining the integrity of elections. But as discussed, the district court found that the risks that noncitizens are voting are, at best, uncertain, and also tempered by California's established voter-eligibility procedures," wrote the 9th Circuit majority — one Trump appointee, one President Joe Biden appointee — that refused to block the 20,000 votes. "In contrast, there is a material risk that granting the United States its requested relief would result in disenfranchisement and could jeopardize the County's entire election."

Those in the coalition resisting the administration's efforts celebrated the rulings and praised the courts.

"The judicial smack down on Trump's unlawful efforts to undermine our elections continues," wrote California Attorney General Rob Bonta, whose office has litigated several of the cases, in response to Thompson's Friday night ruling in favor of the labor unions. "Trump is racking up loss after loss as he enters the final death throes of this election and desperately and wildly lashes out against the will of the voters."

"4 DAYS UNTIL ELECTION DAY. Remember: Your vote matters. Don't be intimidated. Keep voting as normal," wrote Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., in response to the same ruling. "The courts are upholding the rule of law, and states — not Donald Trump — run our elections."

"We said we would not let the Trump administration bully election workers, and today we won a critical court order blocking those threats," SEIU International President April Verrett said. "This ruling is a victory for the workers who make our elections possible and the communities they serve."

The flurry of rulings has been prompted in part by the administration itself, as Justice Department officials have worked to push the cases through the courts at breakneck speed in search of relief ahead of Election Day.

The 9th Circuit has already ruled twice in the case over the 20,000 California ballots, for instance, because Justice Department lawyers appealed the matter before the district court ever ruled, on the notion that U.S. District Judge David O. Carter was taking too long to make a decision.

When the 9th Circuit rejected that effort and kicked the case back down to Carter, he issued one of the most striking rulings of the week.

"Constitutional rights and our democracy are at stake. The public interest favors their protection. Individuals who have met the requirements of California's voter registration laws must not be deprived of a core right merely because of unfounded allegations stemming from a procedure rife with uncertainty and errors," Carter wrote. "The public interest also favors the protection of election staff, who are working diligently to ensure that all citizens can cast their votes."

When the Trump administration appealed that ruling once more to the 9th Circuit, the same panel majority — Trump appointee Mark J. Bennett and Biden appointee Gabriel P. Sanchez — slapped it back again. They wrote that the administration's arguments were legally flawed in multiple ways, not least in that they sought clearly unconstitutional executive authority to intervene in an election.

"We decline the United States's invitation to contravene the Elections Clause by undermining the Constitution's plain text," they wrote.

The Trump administration's immediate response was striking — in that there was none.

After weeks of denouncing California officials for continuing to tabulate ballots and stressing to the courts that such counting constituted an emergency from which it required immediate relief, rapidly appealing adverse rulings and arguing over the merits of each twist with California officials on social media, the administration was silent.

The administration missed a deadline for requesting that the three-judge panel's ruling be revisited by the full appellate court. It made no immediate appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, the lead federal prosecutor in L.A. who argued the case before Carter and has vociferously defended the case on social media, was silent. Neither the Justice Department nor Essayli's office responded to requests for comment on the ruling.