Ninth Circuit leaves block on DHS pre-election voter operations in place

Overview

Updated 1 hour ago

Homeland Security agents cannot knock on doors to question people about their citizenship in nine states before Tuesday's midterms. Late Friday, a majority of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declined to rehear a three-judge panel's decision that kept a lower-court injunction in place. Seven judges dissented.

The blocked program, which the government calls the Unlawful Voter Initiative, sent agents to homes in California, Connecticut, Georgia, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin. A federal judge found the target lists unreliable and the operations likely to intimidate naturalized citizens, which the Voting Rights Act forbids. The injunction expires when polls close.

Why it matters

In nine states, federal agents are barred from pre-election voter questioning until polls close, a limit that lapses on its own.

Questions about this story

Free account needed to ask — your question is kept and asked for you right after sign-up. Answers are public.

No questions yet — be the first to ask.

Key Indicators

States covered by the injunction

California, Connecticut, Georgia, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin.

Judges dissenting from the en banc denial

Six Trump appointees and one Bush appointee, with Judge Eric Tung writing.

Judges on the panel that refused the stay

The panel upheld the district court's injunction on October 30.

Days from the ruling to Election Day

Polls close Tuesday, November 3, 2026.

Voices

Curated perspectives — historical figures and your fellow readers.

People Involved

Araceli Martínez-Olguín

U.S. District Judge, Northern District of California

Issued the preliminary injunction on October 28, 2026

Eric Tung

Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Wrote the dissent from the denial of en banc review

Kim McLane Wardlaw

Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Sat on the three-judge panel

Sidney Thomas

Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Sat on the three-judge panel

Markwayne Mullin

Secretary of Homeland Security

Named defendant in the lawsuit

Beau Tremitiere

Attorney, Protect Democracy

Represents the plaintiffs

Organizations Involved

Department of Homeland Security Investigations

Federal Agency

Ran the blocked field operations

The agency whose Homeland Security Investigations agents carried out the door-to-door voter inquiries.

Department of Justice

Federal law enforcement agency

Defended the program on appeal

The agency that argued the injunction harmed the government's interest in pursuing voter fraud.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Federal appellate court

Kept the injunction in place

The appellate court that declined to rehear the stay request before the full bench.

Protect Democracy

Legal advocacy group

Represents plaintiffs challenging the program

The group whose attorneys argued the DHS operation amounted to voter intimidation.

Timeline

September 2026 November 2026

7 events Latest: Today

Tap a bar to jump to that date

November 2026
Election Day; injunction set to expire
Upcoming Election

The order runs until 8 p.m. or when polling places close.
In 3 days
October 2026
Full Ninth Circuit declines en banc review
Today Legal

Not enough judges vote to rehear the stay; seven dissent, led by Judge Tung.
Today
Three-judge panel refuses to lift injunction
Legal

The panel says the government's delay and timing undercut its claim of irreparable harm.
Yesterday
Panel hears emergency stay request
Legal

Judges Wardlaw and Thomas question the timing and the data behind the surge.
2 days ago
District court blocks operations in nine states
Legal

Judge Martínez-Olguín bars elections-related field operations and interviews through Election Day.
3 days ago
Groups and local governments sue DHS
Legal

California Nurses Association, San Francisco, Santa Clara County, National Nurses United and the Voto Latino Foundation sue over the door-knocking.
October 2026
September 2026
Whistleblower flags flawed citizenship data
Investigation

A report to Congress says a Citizenship and Immigration Services search swept in foreign-born citizens without reliable voting records.
September 2026

Scenarios

Supreme Court stays the injunction before polls close

Unlikely Resolves by Nov 3, 2026

Discussed by: Legal observers tracking the government's emergency appeals

The Justice Department could ask the Supreme Court for an emergency stay, arguing the lower courts have stripped it of authority to investigate voter fraud days before an election. The Court would need to act fast: the injunction expires on its own when polls close November 3.

Injunction lapses and DHS resumes operations after the election

Likely Resolves by End of 2026

Discussed by: Plaintiffs' attorneys and the district court record

The injunction is tied to the election calendar, not the merits. Once polls close, the stated rationale for the block disappears, and DHS could restart field operations unless the district court extends its order. The plaintiffs would likely return to court to seek a longer pause.

Ninth Circuit affirms the injunction on the merits

Possible Resolves by Q2 2027

Discussed by: Election law scholars and the plaintiffs' legal team

The government's appeal of the preliminary injunction continues on the merits. If the Ninth Circuit agrees that the operation likely violated the Voting Rights Act's ban on voter intimidation, the block could outlast the election and constrain similar programs in the future.

Historical Context

2 moments from history that rhyme with this story — and how they unfolded.

August 1965

Voting Rights Act (1965)

Congress passed the Voting Rights Act to dismantle barriers that kept Black Americans from voting. Section 11(b) barred anyone from intimidating, threatening or coercing voters, and it allowed private parties to sue. The provision has since been used against practices that fall short of outright violence but still discourage participation.

Then

Federal examiners and preclearance requirements transformed voter registration across the South within a few years.

Now

Section 11(b) remains the main federal tool for challenging pre-election intimidation, and it is the statute at the center of this case.

Why this matters now

The district court found the DHS operation likely violated Section 11(b), making this case a modern test of how far the intimidation ban reaches.

1982-1987

Democratic National Committee v. Republican National Committee (1982)

A federal court approved a consent decree restricting the Republican National Committee's 'ballot security' operations, which Democrats said targeted minority voters. The decree required court approval for certain poll-watching and mail-in voter programs. It was extended in 1987 and remained in force for decades.

Then

The RNC operated under court supervision for the 1980s and 1990s.

Now

The decree expired in 2018, but courts still cite its logic when weighing whether pre-election programs intimidate voters.

Why this matters now

It is the closest federal precedent for a court supervising pre-election enforcement tactics, which is what the Ninth Circuit has now done through Election Day.