Ninth Circuit Vacates Ruling That Paused Election-Worker Protections

A rapid reversal before Election Day

Reporting current as of November 3, 2026, 3:50 a.m. Eastern.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has vacated a three-judge panel’s decision that temporarily paused restrictions on federal demands and prosecution threats directed at election officials over suspected noncitizen voting.

In an order filed Monday, November 2, Pacific time, the court said a majority of eligible active judges voted to rehear the case en banc, meaning a larger panel will reconsider it. The order vacated the three-judge panel’s decision issued earlier that day.

The earlier panel had granted the federal government’s request to pause a district judge’s temporary restraining order, according to Just Security’s litigation tracker. With that panel decision vacated, the district court’s restrictions are back in effect unless another court changes them, as court reporter Kyle Cheney reported. The appeals court’s short rehearing order did not decide the case’s ultimate merits.

What the district judge ordered

On October 30, U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson issued a temporary restraining order limiting certain actions by the Justice and Homeland Security departments and their officials.

Among other provisions, it bars federal officials from demanding that local election officials remove registered voters or segregate or refuse to count their ballots solely because the federal government alleges those voters are ineligible. It also bars threats of prosecution against workers for processing ballots in compliance with federal and state election law on that basis.

Late Monday, Thompson expanded the order to require the Justice Department to inform her in advance of criminal investigations or prosecutions involving its list of alleged noncitizens, The Associated Press reported.

The order addresses the specified demands and threats. It does not declare every voter on the government’s lists eligible, decide any individual voter’s citizenship, or erase federal laws against illegal voting.

Why the parties disagree

The Service Employees International Union and other labor and civil-rights groups sued the federal agencies, arguing that warnings to election officials would intimidate workers who administer ballots under the rules, Courthouse News Service reported.

In a court filing, the Justice Department argued that an accurate explanation of federal criminal law is not intimidation and challenged the plaintiffs’ standing to bring the case. The department has sought to pause the district court order while it appeals.

At a hearing, a Justice Department lawyer agreed there was a high error rate in the government’s voter data and said officials were seeking help verifying the lists, according to The Associated Press. The plaintiffs argue that relying on inaccurate lists could harm eligible voters. Allegations of ineligibility are not proof that any particular person voted unlawfully.

Separate from the California ballot case

This dispute is related to, but legally separate from, the federal government’s lawsuit seeking to make California set aside ballots from people it suspects are noncitizens. The Supreme Court rejected an emergency request in that California case on Monday; Newstro reported that decision separately.

The Ninth Circuit’s en banc order concerns the government’s appeal of Thompson’s election-worker restraining order. It does not overturn the Supreme Court’s action in the other case. Courts could issue additional orders, so the status described here is a snapshot.

Timeline

Dates for the Ninth Circuit order are Pacific time. A temporary order can be changed by a court.

October 29Unions and civil-rights groups file their lawsuit against the federal agencies.
October 30Judge Thompson issues a temporary restraining order limiting certain federal demands and threats.
November 2A divided Ninth Circuit panel grants the government a stay, according to Just Security’s case tracker.
November 2, laterThe court orders en banc review and vacates the panel’s decision.

A reporter’s update

Journalist Kyle Cheney reported the change and linked to the court’s order. Earlier posts describing the three-judge panel’s stay do not reflect the later order vacating it.