Yellow Jacket InitiativeBy E. Lawrence Anderson, Yellow Jacket Initiative
As of Tuesday, November 3, 2026, about 7:10 p.m. ET. Primary sources: the Supreme Court's order list of Monday, Nov. 2, 2026 and its docket for No. 26A624, both read from the Court's own site; the district court filings in United States v. California, No. 2:26-cv-12025 (C.D. Cal.), Dkts. 168-171, 173 and 174; and the Nov. 2 order and opinion in Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights v. DHS, No. 1:26-cv-03072 (D.D.C.), ECF 47 and 48. Dockets were read from CourtListener's RECAP mirror, which can lag the courts' own system. Every quotation below was checked against those texts.
The government's case, first. The Justice Department says 18 U.S.C. 611, which makes it a crime for a noncitizen to vote in a federal election, gives it the power to ask a court to make California and Los Angeles County hold back the mail ballots of about 20,000 people on a federal list of suspected noncitizens until their citizenship is confirmed. It has pressed that request at three levels of the federal courts since it sued on Oct. 15.
On Monday, Nov. 2, 2026, the day before Election Day, the Supreme Court denied the last of those emergency requests. The order, in full:
"26A624 UNITED STATES V. CALIFORNIA, ET AL. The application for injunction pending appeal presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court is denied."
The Court's docket shows the application, its referral to the full Court and the denial all on Nov. 2. Solicitor General D. John Sauer is counsel of record for the United States. The Court gave no reasons. No dissent is noted in the order list. That does not tell us how each Justice voted, and a denial of emergency relief is not a ruling on the merits.
The emergency track, in order. Judge David O. Carter denied the government's request for a restraining order on Wednesday, Oct. 28. The Ninth Circuit, 2-1, denied an injunction pending appeal on Friday, Oct. 30 (No. 26-7231; our Nov. 2 post). A Ninth Circuit order filed the same day and docketed in the district court on Nov. 3 (Dkt. 173) says no party asked for rehearing en banc, no judge requested a vote, and "en banc proceedings with respect to the panel's order are concluded." The Supreme Court's Nov. 2 denial ends the emergency phase.
What continues. The appeal itself goes on. Under a Ninth Circuit order (Dkt. 174), the government's opening brief is due Monday, Nov. 30, 2026, and the answering brief Wednesday, Dec. 30, 2026. In the district court, motions to dismiss are set for hearing on Friday, Nov. 13, 2026, before Judge Carter:
- Los Angeles County's Registrar-Recorder (Dkt. 171) asks the court to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), on the ground that "the Executive lacks Article III standing," and under Rule 12(b)(6), on the grounds that the Executive has no cause of action and that its claim that California law is "preempted" by section 611 fails to state a claim. These are the County's arguments.
- Intervenors SIREN and Mi Familia en Acción (Dkt. 170) argue that DOJ lacks standing and that section 611 "is a criminal statute" that gives it no civil cause of action. These are the intervenors' arguments.
- California says it stands on its earlier motion (Dkt. 169), and LULAC and the NAACP join the motions (Dkt. 168).
A second court, a narrower order. Also on Nov. 2, Chief Judge James E. Boasberg of the federal court in Washington ruled in Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights v. DHS (D.D.C. No. 1:26-cv-03072; captioned Trujillo v. DHS on CourtListener). His order (ECF 47) grants the motion in part and states that the defendants "are preliminarily ENJOINED from issuing demands to California elections officials to compel the segregation of ballots, or other deviations from existing state elections procedures, based on voters' inclusion on the lists of suspected non-citizens." The opinion (ECF 48) holds that the Executive Branch "has likely violated the Constitution's Elections Clause." It notes that the government relied only on section 611, a statute that, the court wrote, "does not regulate the time, place, or manner of elections." The court agreed with the government that the plaintiffs' broader request was "vague" and entered the narrower order instead.
The opinion also relies on the plaintiffs' expert, who compared the federal list with the group's member list after the court ordered the list produced on Oct. 30. The expert reported that it is "certain" that "at least 22" CHIRLA citizen members "fully match" entries on the list, and that 66 more are "near certain full matches." Those are the expert's figures, which the court found credible; the government disputed their effect on standing.
What is not established. None of these rulings decides whether anyone on the federal list is or is not a citizen. The Supreme Court's order gives no reasoning. The CHIRLA order is preliminary. The government can keep litigating its section 611 theory after the election.
Separately, a different restraining order, entered in SEIU v. DOJ in the Northern District of California, is before the Ninth Circuit (No. 26-7303). We will report that one on its own.
Earlier: United States v. California: the Ninth Circuit, 2-1, declines to make California set aside listed voters' mail ballots (Nov. 2).
Primary sources: Supreme Court order list, Nov. 2, 2026 (No. 26A624); Supreme Court docket, No. 26A624; United States v. California, C.D. Cal. No. 2:26-cv-12025: Dkt. 168, Dkt. 169, Dkt. 170, Dkt. 171, Dkt. 173, Dkt. 174, district docket; CHIRLA v. DHS, D.D.C. No. 1:26-cv-03072: ECF 47 (order), ECF 48 (memorandum opinion).
Read the text.
Independent Research. All Documents Freely Reproducible.