Yellow Jacket InitiativeBy E. Lawrence Anderson, Yellow Jacket Initiative
Update, Saturday, October 24, 2026. When we published, we wrote that as of the evening of Wednesday, Oct 21, "the docket showed no ruling on the restraining order and no hearing date." That evening Judge David O. Carter entered an order (Dkt. 64, dated Oct 21) setting a hearing on the United States' restraining-order application for Tuesday, Oct 27, 2026, at 1:00 p.m. We cannot establish whether that order was entered before or after our docket check (7:45-7:55 p.m. ET, which is 4:45-4:55 p.m. PT). The docket sheet gives the date but not the time. California's later filing says the order issued "at 6:41 p.m. on October 21" (Dkt. 79 at 2). That is California's statement, and the filing does not name a time zone. If it means Pacific time, the order came after our check. Either way, a hearing date now exists, and the sentence below is out of date as of Oct 21. The original text below is unchanged.
Since then:
- Thu Oct 22: the United States filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit. It says the court's "silence is a constructive denial" of its emergency application (Dkt. 74). The notice does not mention the Oct 27 hearing order.
- Fri Oct 23: the United States asked Judge Carter for an injunction pending that appeal (Dkt. 76). California opposed, arguing there is "nothing currently to appeal" (Dkt. 79). The judge set opposition briefs due by 3:00 p.m. PT Sat Oct 24 and the United States' reply by 3:00 p.m. PT Sun Oct 25 (Dkts. 77, 78, 85). He wrote that he "will rule promptly after hearing from the Parties at oral argument on Tuesday, October 27, 2026" (Dkt. 85 at 2). He also granted 21 states and the District of Columbia leave to file a brief as friends of the court supporting the defendants (Dkt. 90). Los Angeles County's Registrar filed his opposition (Dkt. 96; the filing is dated Oct 23).
- Ninth Circuit: the appeal opened on Oct 23 as No. 26-7070. The United States filed an emergency motion there the same day for an injunction pending appeal (DE 6). The court ordered responses by noon PDT Sat Oct 24 (DE 21), and California filed its opposition that morning (DE 30).
As of this update (Saturday, Oct 24, about 3:30 p.m. ET), we have not seen a ruling on the restraining order, on either motion for an injunction pending appeal, or from the Ninth Circuit. Follow-up: A hearing set, an appeal filed: what the record shows in United States v. California.
Watch the 75-second version: https://youtube.com/shorts/OKC8NE6h1cA
On Thursday, October 15, the United States sued the State of California, its Secretary of State, Shirley N. Weber, and the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder, Dean C. Logan. It asks a federal court in Los Angeles to stop California from counting mail ballots from people the federal government has identified as "likely noncitizens" until their citizenship is verified.
Everything below about how the list was built, and who is on it, is the United States' account. None of it has been tested in court.
The strongest case for the suit. Federal law makes it a crime for a noncitizen to vote for federal office (18 U.S.C. 611), and the United States has a recognized interest in enforcing that law. The complaint does not ask for any ballot to be thrown out. It asks that ballots from listed people be set aside and checked. It describes several layers of review before a name reaches the list: a second-level review, supervisor approval, and checks against State Department and Social Security records (paragraphs 37–38).
What the government is asking for. The complaint makes one claim: that under the Supremacy Clause, section 611 overrides California's practice of sending and counting mail ballots from people the federal government has flagged, once the State has been told about them (paragraphs 50–61). It asks for a declaration, and for a preliminary and permanent injunction barring California "from tabulating in federal elections vote-by-mail ballots received from individuals identified by the Federal Government as likely noncitizens until those individuals' citizenship status can be verified" (paragraph 63). Set aside until verified, not cancelled.
The timeline, as the complaint gives it. California mailed ballots on Thursday, October 1. On Tuesday, October 13, the federal government sent the State a list of "over 20,000" names. It asked for a review by noon on Thursday, October 15. The suit was filed that day, 19 days before the November 3 election.
How the list was made. The complaint describes a process run by two parts of the Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and Homeland Security Investigations (paragraphs 33–43). USCIS compares voter-roll data with its own records. It uses "third-party software" to score matches as high, medium or low confidence. High-confidence matches are linked to alien registration numbers and checked against naturalization, State Department and Social Security records. Cases then go to HSI, which runs what the complaint calls "analytical data enrichment" before field investigation.
One footnote. California has not run its voter rolls through SAVE, the DHS citizenship-verification system. So, the complaint says, the USCIS process "was done independent of SAVE" (footnote 1). This list did not come from the system the Supreme Court allowed to resume on September 25 (DHS v. League of Women Voters, No. 26A308). It came from a separate DHS matching process.
Two figures in one document. The complaint says USCIS referred "more than 20,000" names (paragraph 45). It also says HSI "reasonably believes that around 20,000" noncitizens are registered, and that "nearly 20,000" were sent ballots (paragraph 46). We report both and do not choose between them.
What is not established.
- The list itself, filed as exhibits C and D, has not been tested.
- How many people on it are citizens is not known. The complaint gives no error rate for the matching.
- California and Los Angeles County filed oppositions to the government's request for a temporary restraining order on October 20. We have not read them, and their arguments are not summarized here.
- Voting-rights and immigrant-rights groups have moved to intervene on California's side. The United States objects. The court has not ruled.
- On October 21 the case was transferred to Judge David O. Carter as related to an earlier case. As of that day the docket showed no ruling on the restraining order and no hearing date.
- The Justice Department has separately announced criminal charges in California. Those announcements are the Department's claims and are not part of this piece.
Why we are following it. Our research tracks one question across many documents: where the federal government's identity records start deciding things in other parts of life. This complaint puts a DHS citizenship-matching process, run outside SAVE, before a federal judge as the basis for whether specific ballots are counted in a live federal election. It sits beside the Supreme Court's September 25 stay in the SAVE case, and beside Executive Order 14399 (March 31, 2026), which directs federal work on citizenship lists for elections. We will report what the court does.
Source: Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, United States v. California, No. 2:26-cv-12025 (C.D. Cal. filed Oct. 15, 2026), ECF 1, as posted by the Justice Department: https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1466286/dl?inline
Read the text.
Independent Research. All Documents Freely Reproducible.