A federal judge in California late on Friday ordered the Justice Department to stop demanding that state and local election officials separate out ballots or refuse to count votes it alleges were cast by noncitizens, and to stop threatening officials with criminal prosecution if they do not comply.

The order from US District Judge Trina Thompson came in response to a lawsuit filed a day earlier by labour unions and other groups accusing the Trump administration of intimidating California election workers and interfering in the midterms. It is a separate action from the federal appeals court ruling issued the same day in the dispute over roughly 20,000 disputed ballots, which this site covered when the 9th Circuit refused to set those ballots aside.

What the judge found

Thompson found that federal officials had likely violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which prohibits "attempting to intimidate, threaten or coerce" people who help others vote. She also said the government was acting outside its legal or constitutional authority.

"One of the hallmarks of a fair election is the freedom to exercise the right to vote free from threat, fear, or intimidation," she wrote. "Free exercise of the right to vote is a core tenet of our democracy. It requires safeguarding to ensure full participation and public trust in our elections."

In a passage quoted by CBS News, she acknowledged the government's stated purpose and rejected the method: "Although Defendants claim that their actions are designed to halt unlawful voting by noncitizens, their action..." The order that follows from that finding bars the department from demanding segregation or non-counting, and from using prosecution threats to secure compliance.

How this differs from the appeals court ruling

The two rulings are easy to confuse and should not be. The 9th Circuit decision was about a request to set aside specific ballots while citizenship questions were resolved; the panel refused, 2-1, saying the government had not met its burden and that segregating ballots risked catastrophic effects on the count.

Thompson's order is about conduct rather than ballot handling alone. It targets the pressure campaign: the letters, the subpoenas and the threats that the plaintiffs said were meant to force officials to act outside the law. One ruling says the ballots stay in the count for now. The other says the government must stop trying to force officials to pull them out.

The pressure campaign described in court

The Justice Department has pressed California officials this month to separate mail ballots for roughly 20,000 people it alleges are not US citizens, and has issued grand jury subpoenas for officials in Los Angeles County. Federal officials have also suggested for months that election workers could be prosecuted if they failed to stop noncitizens from voting.

The lawsuit cited the head of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, Harmeet Dhillon, sending letters to all 50 states and Washington, DC, in July threatening to prosecute local election officials, and the department's more recent demand for lists of voters it believes may be noncitizens, as examples of unlawful conduct.

The government's position

A Justice Department spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling, according to the Guardian. In a statement about its wider efforts, the department said: "Federal law prohibits noncitizens from voting. Enforcing that law is not an agenda item. It is the Department's job."

California officials say the list behind the allegation is highly unreliable and likely includes many people who are US citizens. That dispute is unresolved: no court has found that the list is accurate, and no court has found that any of the roughly 20,000 voters acted improperly.

What it means before election day

The practical effect is to put a court order between federal investigators and county registrars in the final days of voting. Officials who were being asked to separate ballots now have a ruling they can point to when they refuse, and the threat of prosecution is, for now, restrained by injunction.

Appeals are likely. The government can seek a stay, and the case can move quickly because the election is on Tuesday. Whether the order survives that process is the next question. The order is preliminary: no final judgment has been issued, and the case can still be argued on the merits.

What to watch

Three things matter. First, whether the Justice Department appeals and asks for an emergency stay. Second, whether the ruling changes the behaviour of county officials who were cooperating with the requests. Third, whether the separate ballot dispute returns to the Supreme Court before election day.

For readers following the election-law thread, our coverage of early voting in the Senate battlegrounds sets out the turnout picture, and the Wedgewood poll fabrication admission is a reminder that claims about election data need checking before they travel. The Alaska ballot case shows a different federal district handling a similar segregation request.

The confirmed facts are the order, the judge, the finding of a likely Voting Rights Act violation and the government's stated position. Whether the order holds through appeal, and whether any ballot was cast improperly, remain open.