Yellow Jacket InitiativeBy E. Lawrence Anderson, Yellow Jacket Initiative
As of Saturday, November 7, 2026, about 1:15 p.m. ET. Primary source: the court's Order Granting Temporary Restraining Order in Part of Thursday, Nov. 5, 2026 (Dkt. 21, 25 pages), read in full. The docket was re-read the same afternoon through CourtListener's RECAP mirror, which can lag the court's own system: the last numbered entry is still Dkt. 21, with no notice of appeal, no Ninth Circuit stay and no government opposition yet. Every quotation below was checked against the order's text. The government's filings are described as the order describes them; we have not read them. This is a follow-up to our Nov. 2 note on the complaint.
The government's position, first. As the court's order summarizes its response, the government says it compelled nothing: the Oct. 26 letter was a request, Washington declined it, and under the Ninth Circuit's SEIU ruling the government is likely entitled to make such requests (Dkt. 19 at 3, 8). It told the court that "no further action has been taken" since the letter, and argued that a sent letter is a "rung bell" that an injunction cannot unring. Voting by a noncitizen in a federal election is a federal crime under 18 U.S.C. 611. And the order itself says that nothing in it stops the government "from providing information to Washington election officials, from stating their views of what federal law requires, from requesting the cooperation of state or local officials, or from investigating or prosecuting any person who registers or votes unlawfully."
What the court ordered. On Thursday, Nov. 5, Judge Jamal N. Whitehead of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted a temporary restraining order in part in OneAmerica Votes v. Trump, No. 2:26-cv-04223-JNW. The Justice Department, Attorney General Todd Blanche, DHS, Secretary Markwayne Mullin, and the two federal prosecutors named in the case, Pete Serrano and Charles Neil Floyd, "are RESTRAINED from directing or demanding that any Washington state, county, or local election official (i) remove specific registered voters from their statewide voter registration lists; (ii) refuse to issue ballots to specific registered voters; or (iii) segregate, or otherwise not count and tabulate, any ballots returned by specific registered voters for the November 3, 2026 General Election, or from threatening any such official with criminal prosecution or investigation for failure to comply with such demands."
The order is narrower than what the plaintiffs asked for:
- "The Court does not enjoin the President."
- It "reaches only Washington," and it "expires in fourteen days unless the Court extends it further." Counted from entry, that is Thursday, Nov. 19.
- No bond is required.
- The government asked for a stay pending appeal or, at least, a seven-day administrative stay. The court denied both.
The reasoning. The court read two recent Ninth Circuit rulings together. In United States v. California (Oct. 30), the appeals court held that 18 U.S.C. 611 gives the Justice Department no power to compel a State to set ballots aside. In SEIU v. DOJ (Nov. 2, reinstated Nov. 3), a panel allowed the government to ask. "SEIU and California thus mark the two ends of a line," the order says: "the Government may ask a State to set ballots aside, but it may not compel one to do so."
The court found that, on this record, the government did not merely ask. It found that the Oct. 26 letter set out DOJ's "request and expectations" that Secretary of State Steve Hobbs review a list of roughly 400 registered voters "within 24 hours" (citing the letter, Dkt. 12-10 at 3). When he refused, the court found, the officials announced that they would "continually demand" segregation and send letters to all thirty-nine county auditors. The order quotes Serrano's own account that the goal was to "make sure these ballots aren't counted" (citing Dkt. 12-24). "A threat of prosecution made for that purpose is not legal advice," the court wrote.
These are preliminary findings. The order notes that findings at this stage "are not binding adjudications," and that the court "may come to different, perhaps even opposite, conclusions as the case advances."
What comes next. The government must show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue. Its opposition is due Thursday, Nov. 12; the plaintiffs' reply Monday, Nov. 16; the hearing is Wednesday, Nov. 18, at 1:30 p.m. PT. Under state law, as the order notes, Washington counties certify by Tuesday, Nov. 24, and the State by Thursday, Dec. 3.
How it fits. On Friday, Nov. 6, the Justice Department voluntarily dismissed its own suit against California (C.D. Cal. No. 2:26-cv-12025, Dkt. 180), and the plaintiffs in SEIU v. DOJ voluntarily dismissed theirs (N.D. Cal. No. 3:26-cv-12800, Dkt. 79). As of Saturday afternoon, the Washington order remains in force, and the docket shows no appeal.
Not established.
- Whether the Justice Department or DHS has sent letters to any Washington county auditor since Oct. 26.
- Whether any Washington ballot was actually set aside.
- Whether the government will appeal.
- The number of voters on the list. The order says "roughly 400"; the complaint said "approximately 405." We report both.
- The two prosecutors' titles. The order names "Acting United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Washington Pete Serrano" and "First Assistant United States Attorney for the Western District of Washington Charles Neil Floyd." The complaint, and our Nov. 2 note, gave the titles the other way around (Floyd as Acting U.S. Attorney in the Western District; Serrano, captioned "Simon Peter Serrano," as First Assistant in the Eastern District). We report both and have not resolved which is current.
Earlier: Washington groups sue to stop a federal demand to hold about 405 ballots (Nov. 2).
Sources: Order Granting Temporary Restraining Order in Part, OneAmerica Votes v. Trump, No. 2:26-cv-04223-JNW (W.D. Wash. Nov. 5, 2026), Dkt. 21; docket on CourtListener; United States' Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, United States v. California, No. 2:26-cv-12025 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2026), Dkt. 180; Plaintiffs' Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, SEIU v. DOJ, No. 3:26-cv-12800-TLT (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2026), Dkt. 79.
Read the text.
Independent Research. All Documents Freely Reproducible.