Yellow Jacket InitiativeBy E. Lawrence Anderson, Yellow Jacket Initiative
Update, Monday, November 2, 2026. Since this post: on Friday, Oct. 30, a Ninth Circuit panel, 2-1, denied the government's emergency motion for an injunction pending appeal (No. 26-7231, published order; Judge Bumatay dissenting). That order does not change the Nov. 13 hearing or the special master's review. Follow-up: United States v. California: the Ninth Circuit, 2-1, declines to make California set aside listed voters' mail ballots. The original text below is unchanged.
As of Thursday, October 29, 2026, about 7:30 p.m. ET (4:30 p.m. PT). Sources: the district court filings in United States v. California, No. 2:26-cv-12025-DOC-ADS (C.D. Cal.), Dkts. 149, 152, 153, 154, 159 and 160, read on CourtListener (RECAP copies). Every quotation below was checked against the filed pages.
On Wednesday, Oct 28, Judge David O. Carter denied the United States' application for a temporary restraining order in its suit against California and Los Angeles County (Dkt. 149, 26 pages). The government had asked the court to have the mail ballots of about 20,000 people on a federal list set aside before they are counted. The order ends: "the Court DENIES the Application for a Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. 62)."
The same day, the United States filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit from the "Order denying injunctive relief (ECF 149)" (Dkt. 152), and a renewed request for an injunction pending appeal, asking for a ruling "as soon as possible" (Dkt. 153). On Thursday, Oct 29, the court appointed a technical special master and set an expedited schedule that runs past Election Day (Dkt. 159).
The government's position, first. The suit rests on the federal ban on noncitizen voting in federal elections, 18 U.S.C. 611(a). What the United States asks is that listed mail ballots be segregated and that the voters' citizenship be verified "before tabulating," not that ballots be thrown out (Dkt. 153). It points to the County's own filing (Dkt. 32-1) for the point that once a mail ballot is processed, it "cannot be undone" if the voter is later found ineligible, and says processing is going on now. A restraining-order ruling is preliminary: the court found the United States likely to fail, not that it has failed, and the Ninth Circuit can review it. The court's statements about the list are findings at this early stage, drawn largely from the defendants' and intervenors' declarations, and the United States disputes them.
What the order says. It finds against the government on all four parts of the test for emergency relief. In the order's headings and words:
- Likelihood of success. "The United States likely does not have standing or a cause of action." Section 611 likely does not preempt California election law. And the relief requested "would likely violate federal election law": the National Voter Registration Act's 90-day provision, the Voting Rights Act (52 U.S.C. 10307(a)) and the Civil Rights Act's different-standards provision (52 U.S.C. 10101(a)(2)(A)). The court relies on the Ninth Circuit's decision in Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes, which the Supreme Court has agreed to review; argument there is set for Dec. 8.
- Irreparable harm. "Plaintiff's theoretical risk of imminent harm is solely due to its own neglect." The order notes the government had the voter roll by May 8, that DHS wrote on July 16 that there "may be as many as 190,832" noncitizens registered, and that the suit was filed Oct 15.
- Balance of equities. "The Court cannot conclude that Plaintiff's process is credible." The order cites the lack of disclosed matching rules, "no error rates" or "validation against a reliable benchmark"; that the government "waited until the night before the hearing to reveal" its third-party platform was LexisNexis; and Nevada, where DHS figures went from 15,903 to 6,218 to 185, and "Nevada officials later confirmed that all 185 individuals were citizens." It also applies the Purcell principle against late changes to election rules.
- Public interest. "The public interest favors the protection of voting rights."
From the County's declarations, the order recites that 7,035 of the more than 20,000 records had Los Angeles County addresses, and that in a sample of 200 records 42.4% were active, 42.9% cancelled and 4.6% inactive; 71.2% of the list had never voted. These figures come from the County, as the court cites them. They have not been tested at a hearing.
The order also says the court told the government in open court that threats to charge election officials under 18 U.S.C. 2 "must stop." Intervention by the NAACP, LULAC, SIREN and Mi Familia en Acción was granted the same day (Dkt. 148, a text order; we have not read a separate document for it).
The first appeal. The Ninth Circuit's Oct 26 order in the first appeal (No. 26-7070) is now on the district docket (Dkt. 154). The panel, per curiam, held that the United States "failed to allow the district court adequate opportunity to consider its application," so "we lack jurisdiction over this appeal." It granted the County's motion to dismiss and denied the emergency motion as moot. Two judges concurred and one dissented; we have not summarized those opinions here.
What came Thursday. Dkt. 159 sets an expedited hearing on the State's and County's motions to dismiss and on the government's preliminary-injunction motion. Intervenors may file a motion to dismiss, and the State and County amended ones, by Monday, Nov. 2. The government's omnibus opposition, and every party's witness list, including experts, "regarding the reliability of the October List and the methodology Plaintiff used to produce it," are due Friday, Nov. 6; replies Tuesday, Nov. 10. The hearing is at 10:00 a.m. on Friday, Nov. 13, and listed witnesses "shall be prepared to take the stand." The court appointed Daniel B. Garrie of JAMS "as a technical Special Master to assist the Court in developing the factual record," with costs split evenly between the United States and the State and County. All of those dates fall after Election Day, Tuesday, Nov. 3.
Also Thursday, LULAC and the NAACP opposed the renewed request, arguing that the government "makes no attempt to demonstrate why any of this Court's holdings were misplaced" (Dkt. 160). That is their argument.
What is still open.
- Whether the district court rules on the renewed request (Dkt. 153), and whether the Ninth Circuit acts on the new appeal, before Nov. 3. Neither had happened on the district docket as of this post. We have not seen the new appeal's Ninth Circuit docket.
- Three values on the county letters. The order says the United States sent letters "to every county in California" on Oct 23. The three letters we read are dated Oct 22, and the Secretary of State's declaration said "at least 40 counties." We name all three and do not reconcile them.
Why we are following it. This is the first ruling on the merits of emergency relief over a DHS citizenship-matching list, built outside SAVE with a commercial data product, used to decide whether ballots in a live federal election are counted. Election Day is five days from today.
Earlier: United States v. California: the government names the data product behind its voter list (Oct 27).
Primary sources: United States v. California, No. 2:26-cv-12025-DOC-ADS (C.D. Cal.), Dkt. 149 (Order Denying TRO, Oct 28, 2026); Dkt. 152 (Notice of Appeal); Dkt. 153 (Renewed Request for Injunction Pending Appeal); Dkt. 154 (Ninth Circuit order, No. 26-7070, Oct 26); Dkt. 159 (Order Appointing Special Master, Oct 29); Dkt. 160 (LULAC and NAACP opposition, Oct 29); district docket.
Read the text.
Independent Research. All Documents Freely Reproducible.