Yellow Jacket InitiativeBy E. Lawrence Anderson, Yellow Jacket Initiative
As of Thursday, October 29, 2026, about 7:50 a.m. ET. Sources: the district court's order (Dkt. 87, official govinfo copy), read in full, and the district and Ninth Circuit dockets, read this morning. Every quotation below was checked against the order's text.
On Wednesday, October 21, Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín of the Northern District of California granted a preliminary injunction in California Nurses Association v. Mullin, No. 4:26-cv-10680. It bars the Department of Homeland Security, USCIS, ICE and CBP from certain election-related field work in nine states until the polls close on Tuesday, November 3. The government has appealed, and a Ninth Circuit panel hears argument today on its request to pause the order.
DHS's side, and what the court did not decide. Noncitizen voting in federal elections is a federal crime. DHS argued that federal statutes, including 6 U.S.C. 251(4) and 8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(1) and 1357, authorize these investigations, and the order notes DHS's "stated intent to narrow its impact to people who are not citizens." The court agreed the investigations themselves can be lawful: "Plaintiffs do not claim, nor does the Court find, that it is unlawful for federal officials to undertake investigations into unlawful voting in federal elections." The order is narrow. It found that San Francisco, Santa Clara County and Voto Latino had not shown standing. It did not reach the constitutional, voter-intimidation or Administrative Procedure Act claims. It rests on one theory: section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act, which bars intimidating people for urging or aiding others to vote, brought by the California Nurses Association and National Nurses United.
What it bars. DHS and those acting with it may not conduct "elections-related field operations and field interviews" in California, Connecticut, Georgia, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin "that involve or are likely to involve persons whom the Enjoined Parties know, suspect, or should reasonably know or suspect are U.S. citizens." Nor may they conduct such operations against such persons "based wholly on TECS records generated from the Voter Eligibility Matching Policy." The order runs until 8:00 p.m. or poll close on November 3. It was stayed until 5:00 p.m. Friday, October 23, and required a nominal $100 bond by 5:00 p.m. Thursday, October 22, or it "shall be dissolved." The plaintiffs filed a notice on October 22 that they had paid the $100 bond, with a payment receipt attached (Dkt. 88).
What the court describes from the record. These are preliminary findings, drawn largely from the plaintiffs' exhibits and from a September 14 whistleblower disclosure released by two senators. DHS disputes them, and part of the record is sealed. The court describes: a June 2026 direction from DHS's General Counsel to ICE; an August "Unlawful Voter Initiative"; August 31 "Surge Initiative Guidance" naming the nine states; 48.2 million records DHS received "through independent sources," plus 50.6 million from the Justice Department; a system called iLab through which DHS "enriches" the data; agents ordered during the surge to complete a minimum of 40 reviews, which the court says left no more than twelve minutes to clear a person from the list using commercial databases; and TECS records created for flagged people, which "can be used against [an individual] in any interaction they may have with the federal government." The court quotes USCIS conceding errors from "[s]imilar names, incomplete records, outdated citizenship information, clerical errors, and other circumstances."
Two figures. The League of Women Voters' separate complaint against DHS gives 48.4 million and 50.6 million records. This order gives 48.2 million and 50.6 million. We report both and do not reconcile them.
The appeal. The government filed its notice of appeal on Monday, October 26 (Dkt. 89; Ninth Circuit No. 26-7139). On Tuesday, October 27, it asked the district court to stay the injunction pending appeal (Dkt. 90), and the plaintiffs opposed (Dkt. 91). The same day it filed an emergency motion in the Ninth Circuit asking for a ruling by October 29. In the district court motion, the government argues that the plaintiffs lack standing, that section 11(b) gives private parties no right to sue, that it did not intimidate anyone because of voter mobilization, and that the injunction is "vague and overreaching." Those are the government's arguments, not findings. A Ninth Circuit panel (Judges S.R. Thomas, Wardlaw and Johnstone) set remote argument on the stay motion for today, Thursday, October 29, at 10:00 a.m. Pacific. As of this morning, neither court had ruled on a stay, and the injunction is in effect.
Why it connects. This is a court record of the same USCIS-to-HSI matching chain at issue in United States v. California, where the Justice Department asked a court to set aside more than 20,000 ballots. On October 28 Judge David O. Carter denied that request, and his order cites this one for its finding of a "high likelihood of error in review." Earlier: United States v. California: the government names the data product behind its voter list (Oct 27).
What is not established.
- Whether either court will stay the injunction before Election Day.
- The order twice cites "52 U.S.C. § 50307(b)"; section 11(b) is codified at 52 U.S.C. 10307(b), as the order itself states earlier.
- The October 5 order on the administrative record (Dkt. 67) was not read for this piece.
Primary sources: California Nurses Association v. Mullin, No. 4:26-cv-10680-AMO (N.D. Cal.), Order Granting Preliminary Injunction, Dkt. 87 (Oct. 21, 2026), official govinfo copy; Dkt. 88 (notice of bond payment); Dkt. 89 (notice of appeal); Dkt. 90 (motion to stay); district docket; Ninth Circuit docket; United States v. California, No. 2:26-cv-12025 (C.D. Cal.), Dkt. 149 (Oct. 28, 2026).
Read the text.
Independent Research. All Documents Freely Reproducible.