Yellow Jacket InitiativeBy E. Lawrence Anderson, Yellow Jacket Initiative
Update, Thursday, November 5, 2026. The November 4 update below said a preliminary-injunction hearing was set for November 13. On Wednesday, November 4, Judge Thompson vacated that hearing and stayed the preliminary-injunction proceedings "until further notice from the Ninth Circuit," because the appeal of the October 30 order is still before the Ninth Circuit (Dkt. 78). The order does not decide the merits; it says the plaintiffs may ask the Ninth Circuit itself for an injunction. The October 30 order described below remains stayed by the Ninth Circuit. Details: SEIU v. DOJ: four Ninth Circuit orders in 24 hours, and the stay of the order barring DOJ prosecution warnings stands (update note at the top). The original text below is unchanged.
Update, Wednesday, November 4, 2026. The Ninth Circuit has stayed the October 30 order described below, pending further order of the court: a panel granted the stay on November 2; the court voted to rehear the matter en banc and vacated the panel order the same night; an 11-judge en banc panel reinstated it on November 3; and the full court declined to rehear that order on November 3. The district court case continues, with a preliminary-injunction hearing set for November 13. Follow-up: SEIU v. DOJ: four Ninth Circuit orders in 24 hours, and the stay of the order barring DOJ prosecution warnings stands. The original text below is unchanged.
Five days before the Tuesday, November 3 election, two of the country's largest public-employee unions and two civil-rights organizations sued the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security. They did not challenge the federal list of "likely" noncitizen voters itself. They challenged the threat of prosecution aimed at the people who count those voters' ballots. The next day, a federal judge granted them a temporary restraining order. Every quotation below was checked against the complaint, the order and the government's notice on Saturday, October 31, 2026.
The case. Service Employees International Union v. U.S. Department of Justice, No. 3:26-cv-12800 (N.D. Cal.), was filed Thursday, October 29, 2026. The plaintiffs are SEIU, AFSCME, the League of United Latin American Citizens and the NAACP. The defendants are the Justice Department, Attorney General Todd Blanche, DHS and Secretary Markwayne Mullin. The case was first assigned to Judge P. Casey Pitts, who recused, and was reassigned to Judge Trina L. Thompson.
What the court ordered. On Friday, October 30, Judge Thompson granted the plaintiffs' motion the same day it was filed, before the government had responded. "Given the consequences of inaction, the Court sees no reason to delay its ruling," she wrote. Until 5 p.m. on Monday, November 16, the order bars DOJ and DHS from:
- threatening, intimidating or coercing election officials or workers to stop processing a registered voter's ballot "solely on the basis that the ballot belongs to an individual alleged by Defendants to be ineligible to vote";
- demanding, on that basis alone, that officials remove listed voters from the rolls, refuse to issue them ballots, or segregate or not count their ballots for November 3;
- threatening officials and workers with prosecution for not complying with those demands, or for counting such ballots in compliance with state and federal election law.
It also orders the Justice Department to tell every state, county or local government it wrote to that those demands and threats have been enjoined, and to tell the court about any pending search-warrant applications, grand jury subpoenas or other demands for election materials tied to its lists.
The order states that election workers who process or count ballots "in the manner required by their state and federal laws governing the administration of elections" do "not violate federal criminal law even if a particular ballot belongs to a registered voter alleged by Defendants to be ineligible to vote."
The court's reasoning. The judge found the plaintiffs likely to succeed on two grounds: section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. 10307(b), because "the record shows that Defendants intimidated, threatened, or coerced election workers," and the Elections Clause, which leaves the mechanics of elections to the states. She cited California Nurses Association v. Mullin, the October 21 ruling from the same court that barred DHS "elections-related field operations" involving likely U.S. citizens. On the due-process and Administrative Procedure Act claims, the discussion says "the Court does not find it necessary to analyze" them "at this time"; the order's conclusion nonetheless lists those claims among the likely violations. We note both.
What the complaint says happened. The order's background section is drawn from the plaintiffs' filings, and these are their allegations. As they tell it, the Justice Department sent letters on October 13 to California and Los Angeles County, on October 23 to county officials across California, and on October 26 to Washington's Secretary of State, with lists of voters it called likely noncitizens. The complaint says the letters demanded that ballots be held and warned of prosecution, and that the Washington letter said the Department would "seek emergency relief" if officials did not comply (para. 99).
The complaint also alleges that the Department opened a criminal investigation into election officials in Los Angeles County and at least three other California counties, issued grand jury subpoenas, and had federal marshals serve one official at home (para. 98). For those facts it cites a San Francisco Chronicle report from October 29. It further alleges, citing news reports, that on October 29 the Department "directed federal prosecutors to pursue criminal subpoenas of state and local election officials in California" (para. 3). We have not seen a subpoena, the Washington letter, or any October 29 directive.
The complaint quotes Judge David O. Carter, ruling on October 28 in the government's own case against California: "The government reiterated its threat in open court yesterday, stating that State and County election officials who do not comply with their letter risk federal charges under 18 U.S.C. § 2 ... The court reiterates what it said yesterday: these threats must stop." (United States v. California, C.D. Cal. No. 2:26-cv-12025, Dkt. 149 at 7, quoted at para. 100.) SEIU says it represents about 3,500 election workers in at least nine states: California, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia (para. 22).
The other side. The Department enforces 18 U.S.C. 611, which makes it a crime for a noncitizen to vote in a federal election, and it may investigate possible violations, including through grand juries. Its stated position in United States v. California is that officials who knowingly process ineligible ballots could face aiding-and-abetting liability, and that telling people what the law says is not intimidation. The order was issued without notice to the government under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b). That evening, the government filed a notice that it intends to seek relief "by tomorrow, October 31, 2026," either by moving to dissolve or modify the order or by appealing to the Ninth Circuit (Dkt. 30). As of our check of the district court docket on the morning of October 31, neither had been filed.
What comes next. The government's response to the request for a preliminary injunction is due by noon Monday, November 2. The plaintiffs' optional reply is due Thursday, November 5. A preliminary-injunction hearing is set for Friday, November 13, at 11 a.m. in San Francisco.
What is not established. The order is a temporary ruling, made before the government was heard. It does not decide whether any listed voter is or is not a citizen, and nothing in the record we read proves that any threat was made in the words alleged. Several of the complaint's facts rest on news reports.
Why it matters. Until now, the litigation we have followed has been about the list: how DHS built it, whether California must act on it, and whether federal agents may question voters about it. This case is aimed at the enforcement threat behind the list, and it reaches beyond California, to Washington and to every place the Justice Department sent a letter.
Related: United States v. California: the judge denies the restraining order; A federal court bars DHS 'elections-related field operations'.
Primary sources: Order Granting Temporary Restraining Order, Dkt. 26 (Oct. 30, 2026); Complaint, Dkt. 1 (Oct. 29, 2026); Defendants' Notice of Intent to Seek Relief from TRO, Dkt. 30 (Oct. 30, 2026); docket, SEIU v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, No. 3:26-cv-12800 (N.D. Cal.).
Read the text.
Independent Research. All Documents Freely Reproducible.