Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg on Monday, November 2, barred the federal government from demanding that California election officials set aside ballots of voters on its lists of suspected noncitizens, and on the same day denied a similar request from Democratic Party committees because they lacked standing.
The two opinions, issued in Washington on the eve of Tuesday's midterm voting, apply the same constitutional framework to nearly the same conduct and reach opposite results. The difference is who brought the case and what evidence they put in the record. On Monday we covered the Democrats' suit as it headed to a ruling.
The case that won
The winning case is Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights v. Department of Homeland Security. The plaintiffs are CHIRLA, a group that helps recently naturalized citizens vote, and Pedro Trujillo, a naturalized citizen who plans to vote. In a 20 page memorandum opinion, Boasberg granted a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in part.
At an October 30 hearing he ordered the government to hand over its list of 20,000 suspected noncitizens so CHIRLA could check it against its own members. CHIRLA's expert, Matt Barreto, reported that it is "certain" at least 22 citizen members fully match entries on the list, and that 66 more are near certain matches. Boasberg found the expert well qualified and credible.
On the merits, he concluded the government had likely violated the Elections Clause, which gives the states and Congress, not the executive branch, authority over how elections are run. The only law the government relied on, 18 U.S.C. 611, punishes noncitizens who vote. The opinion holds that it does not regulate the time, place or manner of elections. "The Constitution deals with substance, not shadows," the judge wrote, quoting a 2023 Supreme Court decision.
The order is narrow. Boasberg rejected CHIRLA's broader wording as vague and instead ordered the defendants not to issue demands to California election officials "seeking 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." It does not stop prosecutions of noncitizens who knowingly vote, which the opinion says remains the executive branch's role under Section 611. CHIRLA must post a bond of one dollar.
The case that lost
The losing case is DSCC v. Trump, brought by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the Democratic Governors Association, the Nevada State Democratic Party, the Democratic leaders of the Senate and House and one California voter naturalized in 2006. Boasberg's 25 page opinion opens with the holding: "Even extraordinary merits questions cannot justify the extraordinary relief of a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order if those seeking it lack standing."
He found the plaintiffs "offer no evidence that any state election official has segregated or refused to tabulate the ballot" of anyone on the federal lists. He also rejected their reading of this year's Supreme Court decision in Bost v. Illinois, warning that it would give candidates standing to challenge "every Tweet, Truth Social post, or campaign speech" that undermines confidence in an election.
The judge stressed that the ruling was narrow. "The demand letters issued to the state elections officials may indeed be unlawful," he wrote, and "Had state officials capitulated in the face of the Administration's browbeating, this may well have been a different case." He declined a fallback request covering California, Washington and Nevada, but noted that the CHIRLA order gives the Democrats "some modest relief" in California.
Our comparison of what each record showed
This side by side reading of the two opinions is our own.
Members on the list: CHIRLA showed 22 citizen members who certainly match and 66 who nearly certainly match, 88 in all by our arithmetic. The Democratic plaintiffs did not show any voter on a list.
Officials acting on the lists: In CHIRLA, the court cited evidence that officials in some California counties are reviewing the lists. In the DSCC case, the court found no evidence any state had segregated a ballot or removed a voter.
Money spent: CHIRLA was already diverting staff to answer calls from worried members, which the court called a present injury. The Democratic groups said they would spend money in the future, which the court called a "speculative fear."
Same judge, same day, same Elections Clause analysis. The outcome turned on proof of a concrete, present injury.
The wider picture on Election Day
The opinions also fill in how far the government's demands reached. According to the DSCC opinion, discovery showed formal demand letters went only to California and Washington, and Washington received a list of 400 names on October 26 with a 24 hour deadline. The CHIRLA opinion says the Justice Department later sent lists and demands to all 58 California counties. A separate restraining order from Judge Trina Thompson of the Northern District of California on October 30 already bars similar demands in a union case, and the Supreme Court on Monday denied the government's bid to force California to set the ballots aside. A government motion to strike part of CHIRLA's filing and sanction it over its use of the voter data remains pending.
Two Taps News stories summarize reporting and the analysis discussed on Two Taps and Friends. They are not legal advice. Read our standards.
