ruling

In a cascade of rulings in the days before Tuesday’s elections, federal judges have rejected the Trump administration’s efforts to wrest control over state voting processes, pressure state and local elections officials into complying with their demands and turn the midterm vote into another opportunity for immigration enforcement.

In Northern California late Friday, U.S. District Judge Trina L. Thompson granted labor unions representing California poll workers a sweeping order barring the Trump administration from an array of election-related actions, including demanding that those workers set aside ballots from voters whose eligibility the administration has questioned, and threatening them with criminal sanctions if they refuse to do so.

“Election Day is around the corner. Ballots have already been issued. Americans have already begun voting. Workers have already begun processing ballots,” Thompson wrote. “Given the consequences of inaction, the Court sees no reason to delay its ruling.”

A Justice Department spokesperson criticized Thompson for ruling “without even waiting to hear from the United States,” and said her decision was part of a “two-track system of justice” in which other federal judges have delayed the Trump administration’s “own urgent election claims” until after election day.

“The Department is reviewing the order and evaluating all options,” the spokesperson said.

The ruling followed three others — one in district court in Los Angeles and two in the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals — in which federal judges blocked the administration’s effort to force California elections officials to immediately set aside the ballots of 20,000 voters the administration alleges may be noncitizens, instead setting a schedule for more fact-finding in the case after polls close.

It followed a ruling in a separate case in Washington, D.C., in which a federal judge demanded that the Trump administration turn over its list of alleged noncitizen voters to advocacy groups, including the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles. Data analysts from the UCLA Voting Rights Project wrote in court Saturday that their review of the provided list found it “contains extensive errors” and includes citizens and thousands of others who are not on California’s voter list.

And it came about the same time as a decision late Friday by the full 9th Circuit not to reconsider a ruling by a smaller three-judge panel upholding an earlier ruling by U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguin in Oakland. She had barred federal immigration agents looking for noncitizen voters from conducting door knocks, street stops and other field interviews in California and eight other states.

The administration’s losses — in cases with broad scope and real implications in an election that will determine control of Congress — are the result of legal challenges from a coalition of liberal states such as California, localities such as Los Angeles County, and immigration, voting rights and labor groups.

But they are also the product of a bipartisan stable of federal judges — including appointees of President Trump — who have described the administration’s efforts as unconstitutional and a threat to one of the most core functions of American democracy.

Those judges weighed that threat against the alleged threats to election integrity from noncitizen voters that the Trump administration claimed, and found the former to be greater than the latter.

“To be sure, there are countervailing public interests at stake. There is a public interest in maintaining the integrity of elections. But as discussed, the district court found that the risks that noncitizens are voting are, at best, uncertain, and also tempered by California’s established voter-eligibility procedures,” wrote the 9th Circuit majority — one Trump appointee, one President Biden appointee — that refused to block the 20,000 votes. “In contrast, there is a material risk that granting the United States its requested relief would result in disenfranchisement and could jeopardize the County’s entire election.”

Those in the coalition resisting the administration’s efforts celebrated the rulings and praised the courts.

“The judicial smack down on Trump’s unlawful efforts to undermine our elections continues,” wrote California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, whose office has litigated several of the cases, in response to Thompson’s Friday night ruling in favor of the labor unions. “Trump is racking up loss after loss as he enters the final death throes of this election and desperately and wildly lashes out against the will of the voters.”

“4 DAYS UNTIL ELECTION DAY. Remember: Your vote matters. Don’t be intimidated. Keep voting as normal,” wrote Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), in response to the same ruling. “The courts are upholding the rule of law, and states — not Donald Trump — run our elections.”

“We said we would not let the Trump administration bully election workers, and today we won a critical court order blocking those threats,” SEIU International President April Verrett said. “This ruling is a victory for the workers who make our elections possible and the communities they serve.”

The flurry of rulings has been prompted in part by the administration itself, as Justice Department officials have worked to push the cases through the courts at breakneck speed in search of relief ahead of election day.

The 9th Circuit has already ruled twice in the case over the 20,000 California ballots, for instance, because Justice Department lawyers appealed the matter before the district court ever ruled, on the notion that U.S. District Judge David O. Carter was taking too long to make a decision.

When the 9th Circuit rejected that effort and kicked the case back down to Carter, he issued one of the most striking rulings of the week.

“Constitutional rights and our democracy are at stake. The public interest favors their protection. Individuals who have met the requirements of California’s voter registration laws must not be deprived of a core right merely because of unfounded allegations stemming from a procedure rife with uncertainty and errors,” Carter wrote. “The public interest also favors the protection of election staff, who are working diligently to ensure that all citizens can cast their votes.”

When the Trump administration appealed that ruling once more to the 9th Circuit, the same panel majority — Trump appointee Mark J. Bennett and Biden appointee Gabriel P. Sanchez — slapped it back again. They wrote that the administration’s arguments were legally flawed in multiple ways, not least in that they sought clearly unconstitutional executive authority to intervene in an election.

“We decline the United States’s invitation to contravene the Elections Clause by undermining the Constitution’s plain text,” they wrote.

The Trump administration’s immediate response was striking — in that there was none.

After weeks of denouncing California officials for continuing to tabulate ballots and stressing to the courts that such counting constituted an emergency from which it required immediate relief, rapidly appealing adverse rulings and arguing over the merits of each twist with California officials on social media, the administration was silent.

The administration missed a deadline for requesting that the three-judge panel’s ruling be revisited by the full appellate court. It made no immediate appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, the lead federal prosecutor in L.A. who argued the case before Carter and has vociferously defended the case on social media, was silent. Neither the Justice Department nor Essayli’s office responded to requests for comment on the ruling.

Oct. 30, 2026 8:59 PM PT

A federal judge in California on Friday barred the Justice Department from threatening or coercing election workers to stop processing ballots.

The order issued by U.S. District Judge Trina L. Thompson in the Northern District of California was in response to a suit filed earlier Friday by labor unions seeking to bar the Justice Department from intimidating election workers.

Notably, the emergency order was issued without the Department of Justice weighing in on the case.

“Election Day is around the corner,” wrote Thompson, who was nominated by former President Biden. “Ballots have already been issued. Americans have already begun voting. Workers have already begun processing ballots. Given the consequences of inaction, the Court sees no reason to delay its ruling.”

It also bars the Justice Department from demanding local election officials segregate or not count ballots that the federal government deems may have been cast by ineligible voters.

“This ruling is a victory for the workers who make our elections possible and the communities they serve,” April Verrett, president of the Service Employees International Union, said in a statement Friday night.

The top federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, Bill Essayli, has warned that “any election official who knowingly processes the ballot of a noncitizen is opening themselves to legal jeopardy.”

On Thursday, the Associated Press obtained subpoenas issued to election officials in Los Angeles County. The subpoenas request any documents and communications related to letters sent in July and October by federal officials to state election officials outlining the allegations about noncitizen voters. They also seek any information about efforts to prevent noncitizen votes from being counted. At least three L.A. County election officials have been asked to appear before a grand jury the day after the election.

It is unclear whether the Justice Department intends to bring criminal charges against anyone. The department does not typically subpoena people whom it regards as targets of a criminal investigation to appear before a grand jury.

Outside groups win access to the disputed list

In another Friday ruling, another federal judge ordered the Trump administration to share the disputed list of names with lawyers for the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights and the UCLA Voting Rights Project. They want to examine who is on the list and assess its impact on eligible voters.

It will be the first time that a nongovernmental organization will have the opportunity to evaluate the merits of the list of some 20,000 names. The federal government promptly appealed the decision on Friday evening.

The Democratic candidate for California governor, Xavier Becerra, is an advisor to the UCLA Voting Rights Project.

The two groups sued the Homeland Security Department in early October to prevent it from using federal immigration data to challenge state voter rolls. The lawsuit cited examples in other states where the federal government’s data have been proven to mistakenly include thousands of citizens. It argued that the data-matching methods risk disenfranchising or deterring citizens from voting. On top of that, plaintiffs argued, the lists could disproportionately target naturalized citizens who are legally entitled to vote.

The Justice Department argues that there is just as much to lose if the ballots aren’t separated.

“Every ballot cast by an ineligible voter cancels out the vote of an American citizen,” Kiersten V. Pels, a spokesperson for the department, wrote in an email. “The Department makes no apology for protecting those votes.”

In a separate but related 9th Circuit Court decision on Friday, a panel of judges ruled that federal investigations into illegal voting by noncitizens will remain on hold in nine states until after election day.

The judges, all nominated by Democratic presidents, found that the aggressive and public investigations led some citizens to decide not to engage in election-related activities out of fear of being wrongly targeted.

The judges said the investigations, which are looking into alleged illegal voting in past elections, can resume after the midterms wrap up Tuesday.

Riddle, Mulvihill and Swenson write for the Associated Press. AP writer Swenson reported from New York; Mulvihill reported from Haddonfield, N.J.

A federal judge in Los Angeles denied a Trump administration request Wednesday to immediately block California elections officials from counting the ballots of 20,000 voters whose citizenship the administration questions in a blistering opinion.

U.S. District Judge David O. Carter ruled that the administration’s allegations were “not credible” and that the intervention it sought would violate a host of federal laws, sow chaos in the ongoing midterm election, likely lead to the disenfranchisement of legitimate voters and foster future political meddling in elections.

“This request violates longstanding constitutional principles mandating that states have control over their elections,” Carter wrote. “If [the Trump administration’s] last-minute request for relief were granted, either party could create chaos for their own political purposes to disrupt the election process.”

Carter, an appointee of President Clinton, wrote that never in American history “has the federal government, on the eve of an election, sought to coerce a state and local government to abandon their own Constitutional elections procedures and bend to the will of the Executive Branch,” and that, in bringing its suit, the Trump administration was asking the court to “believe that it reigns as a sole sovereign.”

“But California and its people are sovereign, too,” Carter wrote.

Carter’s ruling was the second to deny the Trump administration a temporary restraining order against the state and Los Angeles County this week, after a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied the government’s emergency request in a separate order Monday.

Carter ruled following a 3½-hour hearing Tuesday, where a slew of attorneys for the state, county and independent voting rights groups argued against the administration’s demands.

First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli — who is the top federal prosecutor in L.A. and argued for the Trump administration at Tuesday’s hearing — did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling Wednesday. After Tuesday’s hearing, he suggested the administration was likely to appeal Carter’s ruling if it didn’t immediately halt the counting of the flagged ballots.

This is a developing story and will be updated.

JACKSON, Miss. — Portions of a Mississippi ban on diversity, equity and inclusion practices in public schools can go into effect after the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a lower court’s ruling that blocked sections of the law from being enforced.

The parts of the law in question prevent public schools from requiring diversity training and maintaining DEI-related programs, courses and offices. It also bans public schools from discussing a list of “divisive concepts” related to race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity and national origin. Public schools that violate the law could lose state funding.

The ban passed in April 2025 and is being challenged by a group of educators, students, parents and activists who say the law violates their 1st and 14th Amendment rights.

The plaintiffs have several weeks to file a petition for rehearing with the 5th Circuit. The law would take effect seven days after the petition deadline passes or if a petition is denied, according to McKenna Raney, an attorney representing the plaintiffs.

The 5th Circuit also ordered that the case be reassigned to a different district court judge after U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate issued a “botch job” temporary restraining order that contained artificial intelligence hallucinations, according to the Thursday ruling. The TRO predates Wingate’s August 2025 preliminary injunction, which the 5th Circuit overturned.

Additionally, the ruling provides clarity on the scope of the law, which opponents have criticized as overly vague.

The law does not apply to scholarly activities, student activities and groups or creative engagements, according to the 5th Circuit. The court also said concerns raised by the plaintiffs that the law would ban discussions of civil rights, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the Ku Klux Klan, the 14th Amendment, Juneteenth and “Of Mice and Men” are incorrect.

“It is heartening to know that at the very least these specific iterations of classroom discussions that have been happening for years in Mississippi are exempted and they can continue unimpeded,” said Raney, an LGBTQ Justice Project staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Mississippi. However, Raney said the types of discussions allowed under the law are still “murky.”

Bates writes for the Associated Press.

Muslim governments backed the genocide case against Myanmar. They must now show that their commitment to the Rohingya goes beyond words.

The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has made Muslim solidarity central to how it presents itself. Nine years ago, Myanmar’s military massacred Rohingya civilians and drove hundreds of thousands from their homes. The persecution has not ended: the Rohingya remain stateless, face continuing violence and risk death while fleeing by sea. Throughout those years, the OIC has held summits and passed resolutions. Yet it has failed to protect them.

When I founded the Burma Human Rights Network 14 years ago, I believed that if we gathered evidence carefully and put it before institutions with the power to act, they would act. We have gathered testimony from survivors of massacres. We have documented the systematic destruction of Rohingya villages, the denial of their citizenship and the deliberate starvation of a people. Yet despite all this documentation, the situation facing the Rohingya has mostly grown worse. The International Court of Justice is expected to rule later this year on whether Myanmar’s actions constituted genocide.

I have sometimes asked myself whether a ruling could help stop the atrocities. The Rohingya survivors who gave evidence in The Hague relived the worst moments of their lives before international judges because they trusted that their testimony would matter. Many of them are still in Bangladesh, still in limbo, dependent on food assistance worth as little as $7 per person per month. One in every seven Rohingya who attempted sea crossings last year was reported dead or missing. They are unprotected, and governments that could do more have not done so.

People often ask me why we continue. I have never had a satisfying answer. What I know is that without a record of these atrocities, it becomes easier to deny they happened. I continue because, after hearing these accounts and seeing the evidence, I do not know how to walk away from it.

We have published evidence that governments did not want to confront, and we have called the atrocities what they are: genocide. If the court finds that Myanmar committed genocide, it would be the first time in the International Court of Justice’s 80-year history that a state has been held responsible for the crime.

I now address the OIC foreign ministers who will gather in Baghdad on October 17. The OIC backed this case, and your governments supported the effort to hold Myanmar accountable for its treatment of the Rohingya. Many Rohingya, along with many of us who work with them, took those commitments seriously. When the ruling arrives, I expect statements welcoming it and renewed promises of accountability. But another communiqué will not protect anyone. OIC governments should refuse to forcibly return Rohingya to Myanmar, protect Rohingya who reach their territory, sustain support for refugees in Bangladesh and agree on diplomatic and economic measures against those responsible for their persecution. These are choices your governments can make.

The way Rohingya are treated across the region is hard to reconcile with those commitments. Some governments that speak about the Rohingya in international meetings do not offer the same protection to those who arrive at their borders. A government cannot demand accountability from Myanmar and at the same time send people back into danger.

Bangladesh hosts 1.2 million Rohingya and has faced years of pressure to send them back. The OIC must also challenge abuses against the Rohingya by governments outside its membership. In 2025, according to testimony documented by Amnesty International, Indian authorities forced at least 40 Rohingya from a naval vessel into the Andaman Sea, leaving them to swim towards Myanmar. If the OIC says nothing when governments expose Rohingya to that kind of danger, those governments have little reason to change course.

To the Rohingya community organisations that kept working, the journalists who reported despite restrictions on access, those who helped survivors bring their testimony to international forums, and the advocates who stayed with this issue when official attention moved elsewhere, I can only say this: you did work that governments with armies and treasuries should never have left to you. The evidence you preserved is now part of the record.

The 57 governments meeting in Baghdad have repeatedly pledged solidarity with the Rohingya and supported efforts to hold Myanmar accountable for genocide. But solidarity means little if it does not translate into action. A judgment from The Hague will not protect the Rohingya by itself. What those governments do after it will show whether their support for this case has consequences beyond the courtroom.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court will open its new term Monday by hearing arguments on whether the oil and gas industry may be forced to pay damages for the scorching heat waves, wildfires and droughts that are blamed on climate change.

It’s a momentous question the justices have put off deciding for nearly a decade — and may do so again.

California joined more than two dozen blue states and municipalities in 2023 when it sued the five largest oil companies, alleging “decades of deception” over the danger of a warming climate.

They have “privately known the truth for decades but have fed us lies and mistruths to further their record-breaking profits at the expense of our environment,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said.

Fire and smoke rise at the Chevron Refinery in El Segundo in October 2025.

(Robbin Goddard/Los Angeles Times)

Such climate-change lawsuits were patterned after the mass claims against the tobacco and opioid industries. Both were accused of concealing the dangers of their very profitable products.

But the climate suits have stalled. Judges have been divided over whether these potentially huge claims should be decided in federal or state court, and if so, under what law.

Last year, Boulder County, Colo., won a 5-2 ruling in the state Supreme Court that allowed its 2018 suit to proceed as a claim of a public nuisance, an unjust enrichment or a civil conspiracy. These are referred to as “common law” claims that are long-standing and traditional but do not rely on a measure approved by the Legislature.

The Colorado judges also said the climate-change suits are not “preempted” or blocked by federal anti-pollution laws because the suit for damages did not regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

The dissenters said the state court was giving Boulder a “green light to act as its own republic” to punish the Exxon Mobil Corp. for the impact of “global climate change.”

Appealing to the Supreme Court, the oil companies sounded the same theme.

“Boulder, Colorado cannot make energy policy for the entire country,” they said. A ruling for the county would “authorize all 50 states and tens of thousands of municipalities” to ask their local juries to “impose ruinous liability” on the fossil fuel industry, they told the court.

The Trump administration joined in support of the industry’s appeal.

“Our federal system would disintegrate if each state could tackle inherently national or international problems by forcing its regulatory prescriptions on the other 49,” the administration’s lawyers wrote.

In February, the justices voted to hear the case and decide whether federal law blocks state law claims for the “effects of interstate and international greenhouse-gas emissions.”

The court scheduled the case of Suncor Energy and Exxon Mobil vs. Boulder County as the first of the new term.

Legal experts say the industry’s claim to be shielded by federal law is weak.

UCLA law professor Alejandro Camacho described the “preemption arguments as the latest and perhaps most ambitious effort to weaponize federal law to prevent polluters and fraudsters from paying for the harms they cause.”

Neither the Constitution nor the Clean Air Act provides such a shield, he said.

Legal experts on the other side question the notion that a public nuisance can be defined so broadly to include both the sale of a legal product and the impact on carbon pollution, much of it coming from China and India.

The outcome in the Supreme Court remains in doubt.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, left, shown with Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh in 2025, withdrew from involvement in the climate case being argued Monday, when the court term begins.

(Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)

Last week, Justice Samuel A. Alito, a reliable conservative, announced he was withdrawing from the case. He did not say why, but he owns stock in other oil companies that could be affected by the court’s decision.

A broad ruling for Boulder would send a shock through the fossil-fuel industry and clear the wave of climate-change suits to proceed in state courts.

The industry may turn to Congress. Republicans in the House and Senate have introduced bills that would shield energy companies from such liability claims.

Similarly, a broad ruling shielding the oil companies probably would block all of the climate change suits, including California’s.

The justices may opt out of ruling, however.

When they granted review of the case, they asked the lawyers on both sides to weigh in on whether the high court had “jurisdiction” to decide the Boulder case.

Usually the U.S. Supreme Court reviews only final judgments handed down by state courts, and the Boulder case did not result in a final ruling.

And without Alito, the court could split 4 to 4.

A decision based on a tie vote would affirm Boulder’s early stage victory but would not set a precedent that would govern other cases.

In its new term, the court also will hear major cases on immigration and guns.

Two of the cases test the Trump administration’s strict deportation policies. One denies bond hearings to people who entered the country illegally and may be deported.

In the past, the government usually offered bond hearings to those who could be held for months or even years while their claims were pending, so long as they could show they were not a flight risk or danger to the public.

But the Trump administration said it plans to detain tens of thousands of such persons indefinitely, even if they have no criminal record and pose no risk.

Government lawyers pointed to a provision of the 1996 immigration law that said people who entered the country illegally “shall be detained.” Previous administrations applied the mandatory-detention rule only to migrants who entered the U.S. illegally and were arrested near the border.

A refinery in Carson in 2024.

(Michael Blackshire/Los Angeles Times)

On Thursday, the court announced it will hear arguments on the mandatory detention policy, likely to be scheduled for January.

The other case involves so-called “third-country removals.”

The administration is determined to deport immigrants who have “final orders of removal,” many of whom have criminal records. But in some cases, they may not be sent back to their country of origin.

The policy of sending them to a third country has been condemned as harsh and cruel. Thousands of these people have been flown to impoverished countries that are dangerous and where they may be subjected to abuse.

The administration says it seeks assurances from those countries that the deported persons will not be not be abused or persecuted, but it refuses hearings for individuals.

U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Boston has ruled these deportees are entitled to a “meaningful notice” of where they are being sent and “meaningful opportunity” to contest this if they have a reasonable fear they will face persecution and torture.

Trump administration lawyers filed emergency appeals at the Supreme Court to set aside Murphy’s orders. They argued that the judge had gone beyond his authority, and the court’s conservatives agreed.

In December, however, the court will hear arguments from both sides on what the law calls for in such deportation cases.

Meanwhile, on Dec. 2, the court will hear a potential landmark on gun rights and and decide whether states may prohibit possession and sale of semiautomatic AR-15 rifles.

California and 11 other blue states have adopted such laws, often in response to mass shootings.

Gun rights advocates say these rapid-fire rifles are among the most popular weapons nationwide and should be protected as lawful under the 2nd Amendment’s right “to keep and bear arms.”

After turning away cases for a decade, the justices voted to hear 2nd Amendment challenges to the laws in Cook County, Ill., and the state of Connecticut.

WASHINGTON — A federal court in Texas on Friday issued a ruling temporarily blocking the Trump administration from building a border wall and other infrastructure across the state’s Big Bend region.

The news marks a major win for landowners, businesses and environmentalists in the region who have united to oppose the planned infrastructure projects, which are part of a $46-billion effort by the Trump administration to line the southern border with a mix of 30-foot steel walls, vehicle barriers, roads and surveillance technology.

Judge Kathleen Cardone said in her ruling that the plaintiffs were “likely to succeed on the merits of at least one of the claims in suit, that there is a likelihood that they will suffer serious, irreparable harm without an injunction, and that the balance of the equities and the public interest weigh in their favor.”

Customs and Border Protection and the Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Opponents of the border wall project have argued that the Big Bend region is so remote and the landscape so rugged that it serves as its own deterrent to illegal immigration, and that the administration violated the law when it issued a swath of waivers allowing it to bypass numerous regulations in order to speed up border wall infrastructure projects.

Laiken Jordahl, with the Center of Biological Diversity that brought the suit, called Cardone’s ruling a “total victory.”

“The bulldozers are going to be sent packing until she rules on the merits,” Jordahl said. “This is such a historic day for Big Bend and for Texas and the Constitution.”

The court’s decision comes just weeks after the administration erected the first border wall panels in the Big Bend sector in the middle of September.

Santana writes for the Associated Press.