Full 9th Circuit to rehear Trump election-worker threats case on Election Day

The full 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted late Monday to rehear the Trump administration's appeal of an order that blocked it from threatening election workers with criminal prosecution if they do not set aside ballots suspected of being cast by noncitizens ¹. The decision came hours after a divided three-judge panel lifted a restraining order from U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson, which had allowed the Justice Department to resume its demands to states ¹.

Chief Judge Mary Marguia, an Obama appointee, wrote in a late-night order that the panel's decision was vacated after a majority of the court's nonrecused active judges voted to rehear the case en banc ¹. Bloomberg Law reported that a panel of 11 judges on the country's largest federal appeals court will convene to decide the question ².

On tapeNBC News · Nov 2

▶1:19

How the case got here

Two labor unions and political-interest groups sued the administration last week after the Justice Department sent letters to California and Washington asking the states to check their voter rolls for potential ineligible voters and to sequester those mail ballots until citizenship status could be verified ¹. One letter to Los Angeles officials warned of "significant federal scrutiny and legal exposure" if they did not comply ¹.

The challengers accused the administration of unlawfully trying to interfere with the midterm elections by coercing election officials with threats, arguing it could disenfranchise lawful voters ¹. Appeals Court Judges Carlos Bea and Consuelo Callahan, both George W. Bush appointees, found the government was likely to succeed on the merits, writing that the DOJ's actions fell within "core Executive functions" that did not "actually disturb" the states' constitutional right to administer their elections ¹.

From Channel GOPThompson: Trump's DHS hid ICE killing of citizenBennie Thompson · 159 plays · captioned, with the source named

We therefore decline Plaintiffs' invitation to read the VRA [Voting Rights Act] as rendering the Executive's exercise of those functions as unlawfully intimidating, threatening, or coercive

Marguia dissented, writing that the majority's holding "cannot be reconciled" with an earlier 9th Circuit decision that rejected the administration's bid to set aside 20,000 California ballots ¹. She wrote that the executive branch had "no right" to dictate election procedures to the states ¹.

And if Defendants cannot dictate these procedures directly, then they likewise cannot dictate them by subjecting vulnerable election workers to baseless—but chilling—threats of federal prosecution

The Supreme Court earlier on Monday turned away the Trump administration's emergency request to segregate the California ballots ¹.

What happens next

The en banc court will now review the panel's ruling, with the 11-judge panel set to convene as ballots are counted for Tuesday's midterms ². The case turns on whether the Justice Department's letters and warnings amount to unlawful intimidation of election workers or a lawful exercise of executive authority ¹.

That matters because the dispute is unfolding on the day voters cast ballots, and it pits the federal government's prosecutorial power against the states' constitutional role in running elections ¹. For older voters who rely on mail ballots, the question of whether ballots can be pulled aside and held is a direct one.

The Record

1. Nov 2, 2026A divided three-judge 9th Circuit panel lifted Judge Trina Thompson's restraining order, letting the Justice Department resume demands to states ¹.
2. Nov 2, 2026The Supreme Court turned away the Trump administration's emergency request to segregate the California ballots ¹.
3. Nov 2, 2026A majority of the 9th Circuit's nonrecused active judges voted to rehear the case en banc, vacating the panel decision ¹.
4. Nov 3, 2026A panel of 11 judges on the 9th Circuit will convene as midterm ballots are counted ².

Free to reprint Republish this story on your site or in your newsletter

Any site, blog or newsletter may run this story free of charge. Keep the credit line and its link to the original, do not sell it, and edit only for length or house style (the full terms). Photos carry their own licenses, noted under each photo on this page, so use the text alone unless a credit says otherwise.

<h2>Full 9th Circuit to rehear Trump election-worker threats case on Election Day</h2> <p><em>By The GOP Files Courts Desk. This article first appeared on <a href="https://thegopfiles.com/story/full-9th-circuit-to-rehear-trump-election-worker-threats-case-on-election-day">The GOP Files</a> on Tuesday, November 3, 2026.</em></p> <p>The full 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted late Monday to rehear the Trump administration&#39;s appeal of an order that blocked it from threatening election workers with criminal prosecution if they do not set aside ballots suspected of being cast by noncitizens . The decision came hours after a divided three-judge panel lifted a restraining order from U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson, which had allowed the Justice Department to resume its demands to states .</p> <p>Chief Judge Mary Marguia, an Obama appointee, wrote in a late-night order that the panel&#39;s decision was vacated after a majority of the court&#39;s nonrecused active judges voted to rehear the case en banc . Bloomberg Law reported that a panel of 11 judges on the country&#39;s largest federal appeals court will convene to decide the question .</p> <h2>How the case got here</h2> <p>Two labor unions and political-interest groups sued the administration last week after the Justice Department sent letters to California and Washington asking the states to check their voter rolls for potential ineligible voters and to sequester those mail ballots until citizenship status could be verified . One letter to Los Angeles officials warned of &quot;significant federal scrutiny and legal exposure&quot; if they did not comply .</p> <p>The challengers accused the administration of unlawfully trying to interfere with the midterm elections by coercing election officials with threats, arguing it could disenfranchise lawful voters . Appeals Court Judges Carlos Bea and Consuelo Callahan, both George W. Bush appointees, found the government was likely to succeed on the merits, writing that the DOJ&#39;s actions fell within &quot;core Executive functions&quot; that did not &quot;actually disturb&quot; the states&#39; constitutional right to administer their elections .</p> <blockquote><p>We therefore decline Plaintiffs&#39; invitation to read the VRA [Voting Rights Act] as rendering the Executive&#39;s exercise of those functions as unlawfully intimidating, threatening, or coercive</p><p>&mdash; Carlos Bea and Consuelo Callahan, Judges, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals</p></blockquote> <p>Marguia dissented, writing that the majority&#39;s holding &quot;cannot be reconciled&quot; with an earlier 9th Circuit decision that rejected the administration&#39;s bid to set aside 20,000 California ballots . She wrote that the executive branch had &quot;no right&quot; to dictate election procedures to the states .</p> <blockquote><p>And if Defendants cannot dictate these procedures directly, then they likewise cannot dictate them by subjecting vulnerable election workers to baseless—but chilling—threats of federal prosecution</p><p>&mdash; Mary Marguia, Chief Judge, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals</p></blockquote> <p>The Supreme Court earlier on Monday turned away the Trump administration&#39;s emergency request to segregate the California ballots .</p> <h2>What happens next</h2> <p>The en banc court will now review the panel&#39;s ruling, with the 11-judge panel set to convene as ballots are counted for Tuesday&#39;s midterms . The case turns on whether the Justice Department&#39;s letters and warnings amount to unlawful intimidation of election workers or a lawful exercise of executive authority .</p> <p>That matters because the dispute is unfolding on the day voters cast ballots, and it pits the federal government&#39;s prosecutorial power against the states&#39; constitutional role in running elections . For older voters who rely on mail ballots, the question of whether ballots can be pulled aside and held is a direct one.</p> <p><em>Read the original, with every source linked, at <a href="https://thegopfiles.com/story/full-9th-circuit-to-rehear-trump-election-worker-threats-case-on-election-day">thegopfiles.com</a>. Republished under The GOP Files' <a href="https://thegopfiles.com/republish">free republishing terms</a>.</em></p> <img src="https://thegopfiles.com/api/rp/full-9th-circuit-to-rehear-trump-election-worker-threats-case-on-election-day.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" style="border:0;width:1px;height:1px">

Copy the HTML Paste it into your editor's HTML view. The one-pixel image at the end tells our newsroom the story ran; it stores no reader data.

Sources

1. The Hill, “Full appeals court to rehear case on Trump administration election worker threats” (2026-11-03). thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/6191286-9th-circuit-tru
2. news.bloomberglaw.com, “Ninth Circuit Will Reconsider DOJ’s Election Worker Threats Case” (2026-11-03). news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/ninth-circuit-will-reconsid

Found an error? Tell the newsroom. Corrections are noted at the top of the story.