Skip to main content

US appeals court restores Trump administration’s authority over suspected noncitizen ballots

US appeals court restores Trump administration’s authority over suspected noncitizen ballots
— Photo: Anadolu Agency

The Ninth Circuit ruled 6-5 to lift restrictions on the administration’s efforts to ask state election officials to set aside ballots linked to people suspected of being ineligible noncitizens. The decision also allows federal officials to warn that knowingly counting unlawful ballots could lead to prosecution.

ru

Preparing…

The summary was written by AI from this story's own text.

That did not work. Please try again a little later.

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Tuesday reinstated an earlier ruling that lifts restrictions on the Trump administration’s efforts to pressure state election officials to set aside ballots cast by voters suspected of being noncitizens. The 6-5 decision allows the administration to resume its requests and warnings about potential federal prosecution, Anadolu Agency reported.

The ruling was the court’s third order in about 12 hours, amid an unusual series of legal developments on Election Day.

A three-judge panel initially granted a stay of a district court order restricting the administration’s actions. The full Ninth Circuit later vacated that decision and ordered a rehearing en banc. On Tuesday, an 11-judge panel reinstated the stay in a 6-5 vote.

Under the latest ruling, the administration may continue asking state election officials to set aside ballots associated with individuals suspected of being ineligible noncitizens. Federal officials may also warn election officials that knowingly counting unlawful ballots could expose them to federal prosecution.

The ruling suspends requirements for the administration to disclose certain pending warrants and grand jury subpoenas involving voters alleged to be ineligible. It also suspends a requirement to notify election officials of the district judge’s restrictions.

Judges Eric D. Miller and Mark J. Bennett issued separate opinions, acknowledging that the Justice Department’s interpretations of the law may lack merit. They nevertheless argued that courts generally cannot prohibit the department from communicating its interpretation of federal criminal law, even if that interpretation is incorrect.

Five judges dissented, citing concerns about possible consequences for election officials and voters.

Chief Judge Mary Murguia said warnings of federal prosecution put election officials in an untenable position, forcing them to navigate conflicting legal obligations while administering elections.

OMM Bot · Shall I show you today’s 5 most read stories?

Author

Editorial board

All their articles ›
Loading next story…