Supreme Court’s blunt dismissal of Trump admin’s California ballots case shows how far the DOJ has fallen

The U.S. Supreme Court sent the Department of Justice (DOJ) an unusually blunt message when it rejected, in unprecedented fashion, the administration’s attempt to interfere in midterm voting in California.

With a single sentence, the Supreme Court spurned the DOJ’s bid to force the state to set aside 20,000 mail-in ballots that the administration claims have been provided to noncitizens. 

The brush-off is the latest sign that judges from all levels of the court system are growing exasperated with President Donald Trump’s attempts to take over the election process, which the Constitution gave to the states.

The Supreme Court’s order came just hours after Solicitor General John Sauer filed an emergency appeal. The justices didn’t even call for a response from California or other opposing parties before delivering the rebuke. No justices publicly dissented, nor did the court offer an explanation.

“A Solicitor General filing used to be a thing of such gravitas, and treated with such respect, that it would be unthinkable and almost disrespectful to deny it without seeing what the other side had to say for itself. A lot of things have changed,” attorney Sean Marotta wrote on X.

“Dear [Attorney General Todd Blanche]: When you betray your oath and try to enforce the rule of trump over the rule of law, you get smacked down. This time by the Supreme Court,” Democratic Rep. Ted Lieu, a former military prosecutor who represents California’s 36th congressional district, posted on social media.

Overall, in its lawsuit to force California to segregate 20,000 ballots allegedly sent to noncitizens, the DOJ lost in district court and twice at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals before it sought a last-ditch lifeline from the Supreme Court.

“Supreme Court’s prompt denial of administration motion for emergency relief in the California case is a strong indication that the court is not looking to parachute in to a Trump-created election mess,” Harry Litman, a legal analyst and former federal prosecutor, wrote on X.

The Supreme Court previously handed President Donald Trump a defeat when it declined to revive his mail-voting restrictions ahead of the midterms. The justices also knocked down a Republican effort to use a gerrymandered map in Missouri three times. 

Lower courts, too, are rejecting the Trump administration’s other attempts to meddle in the midterm elections at nearly every turn.

The DOJ’s lawsuit to stop Alaska from certifying its U.S. Senate election if the GOP candidate loses was thrown out by a federal judge who criticized the federal government for offering no workable plan for its proposal to separate ballots. 

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan barred the DOJ and the Department of Homeland Security from sending states lists of people the administration claims are noncitizens illegally registered to vote. Chutkan found the Trump administration likely violated federal privacy and rulemaking laws.

Overnight, a majority of all Ninth Circuit appellate judges reinstated a federal judge’s order stopping the DOJ from threatening election officials with criminal prosecution if they don’t comply with the administration’s demands to segregate ballots based on unproven claims of noncitizen voting. The judge found the DOJ’s actions likely violated federal law outlawing voter intimidation and amounted to interference “with the lawful administration of elections.”

“Again and again, our nation’s courts have made clear that the Trump administration’s efforts to meddle in tomorrow’s election are not legal. It is time for President Trump and his allies at the Department of Justice to throw in the towel on their subversion efforts and allow the people of California and America to vote and have their vote fairly counted,” Tianna Mays, the legal director for Democracy Defenders Fund, said in a statement on Monday.