About 20,000 registered California voters are on a federal list that the U.S. Department of Justice says identifies likely noncitizens, and DOJ sued California and Los Angeles County on October 15, 2026 to keep their mail ballots from being counted until citizenship is verified. No judge has ruled, so no court order has changed how California handles ballots for the November 3, 2026 election.
Claims Only · No Ruling Yet
This article describes a lawsuit filed by the federal government. The government’s assertions, including its estimate of noncitizen registrants, are unproven claims, and California disputes them. No court has ruled on them. This page is informational. It is not legal advice.
What the Lawsuit Asks For
The case is United States v. State of California, No. 2:26-cv-12025, filed October 15, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The defendants are the State of California, Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber and Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean C. Logan, each official sued in an official capacity.The complaint has a single count. It argues that California’s handling of mail ballots, as applied to people federal agencies have flagged, is preempted under the Supremacy Clause because counting those ballots would facilitate violations of 18 U.S.C. § 611, the federal law barring noncitizens from voting in federal elections. DOJ asks the court to declare California’s conduct preempted and to issue a preliminary and permanent injunction barring the state from tabulating mail ballots from listed voters until their citizenship is verified, either by California itself or in cooperation with federal agencies.
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
How the Dispute Reached Court
- July 16, 2026: Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin wrote to Secretary Weber that a preliminary review of California’s voter registration data showed there “may be as many as 190,832” noncitizens registered, and offered to work with the state on identity verification.
- July 23, 2026: Weber replied that her office had never shared the statewide voter list with any federal agency, asked DHS to explain its data sources, software and matching criteria, and noted that the NVRA bars systematic voter removals in the 90 days before a federal election.
- Early October 2026: California counties mailed ballots to all registered voters, as state law requires. The complaint says Los Angeles County began mailing on October 1.
- October 13, 2026: Acting Deputy Attorney General R. Trent McCotter sent letters to Weber and to Logan, delivered with a password-protected thumb drive, asking officials to review a list within 48 hours, set aside returned ballots from listed voters whose citizenship could not be confirmed, and hold off on sending ballots to others on the list. The letters said DOJ would seek emergency relief if officials did not comply by noon Eastern on October 15.
- October 15, 2026: DOJ filed suit. According to the complaint, the Los Angeles County registrar had announced it would not open the drive. CBS News reported that the county cited data privacy and information security protocols.
What DOJ Says About the List
The complaint describes a two-agency review. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services compared California voter registration information with its immigration records, rated potential matches by confidence level, and checked high-confidence matches against naturalization, State Department and Social Security death records before sending them to Homeland Security Investigations for further analysis. DOJ says the process left “around 20,000” likely noncitizens registered in California, many with addresses in Los Angeles County, and that the list it delivered held “over 20,000” names.DOJ also points to features of California law it says make the problem harder to catch: ballots go automatically to every registered voter, the return envelope warns against voting twice but not against noncitizen voting, and signature review is construed in the voter’s favor, with even a mark such as an “X” presumed valid.
California and the Voter Groups Respond
California, represented by Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office, has not yet answered the complaint. Its first filings dispute which judge should hear the case. DOJ asked that it be assigned with Wagner v. Weber, No. 8:26-cv-01263, a private NVRA lawsuit seeking voter-roll removals. California, joined by Logan, says the closer match is United States v. Weber, No. 2:25-cv-09149, an earlier DOJ suit seeking California’s unredacted voter file that the court dismissed in 2026; that ruling is on appeal to the Ninth Circuit.Two sets of organizations have moved to intervene as defendants. SIREN and Mi Familia en Acción, represented by Elias Law Group, filed first; Secretary Weber does not oppose their motion. LULAC and three NAACP entities filed a second motion on October 16. SIREN and Mi Familia en Acción argue that DOJ has not disclosed how the list was generated, that the federal estimate has fallen from more than 190,000 to roughly 20,000, and that naturalized citizens are likely to be wrongly swept in. They cite the experience in Nevada, where state officials reported that every person on a 185-name DHS list they reviewed was a citizen, as covered by The New York Times.
The Legal Rules in Play
- 18 U.S.C. § 611: makes it a federal crime for a noncitizen to vote in an election for federal office. DOJ’s complaint is built on this statute, using the Supremacy Clause to argue that state election procedures cannot knowingly facilitate violations of it.
- The NVRA 90-day rule: 52 U.S.C. § 20507(c)(2)(A) requires states to finish systematic programs to remove ineligible voters at least 90 days before a federal election. California says that period began August 5, 2026. The proposed intervenors argue DOJ’s request is a removal program by another name.
- Common Cause v. U.S. Department of Justice: on October 9, 2026, Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan in Washington, D.C. (No. 1:26-cv-01352) held unlawful a DOJ policy of collecting state voter lists, running them through the DHS SAVE system and pressing states to remove flagged voters. The intervenors rely on that ruling. OpenClassActions.com covered an earlier challenge to the SAVE voter database.
- Federal mail-voting rules for 2026: separately, the Supreme Court in September declined to lift an order blocking the USPS ballot mail rule, leaving existing state procedures in place for the midterms.
What Happens Next
The court must first assign a judge and resolve the related-case dispute, then rule on the two intervention motions. DOJ’s letters said it would seek emergency relief, and its complaint requests a preliminary injunction, but as of October 18 the docket did not show a separate motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction. Any ruling that touches ballot processing would have to come quickly: under California law, mailed ballots must be postmarked by November 3 and received within seven days after Election Day to be counted.Questions
Has a judge ordered California to set aside any mail ballots?
No. As of October 18, 2026, no judge had been assigned to United States v. California, No. 2:26-cv-12025, and the court had issued no order. The complaint asks for a preliminary injunction, but the docket did not yet show a separate emergency motion.
How did federal agencies build the list of about 20,000 voters?
According to the complaint, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services matched California voter registration information against its immigration records, used third-party software to rate matches as high, medium or low confidence, and checked high-confidence matches against naturalization, State Department and Social Security death records before referring them to Homeland Security Investigations. California and the proposed intervenors say DOJ has not disclosed the underlying data or methodology.
What is the NVRA 90-day rule the voter groups cite?
The National Voter Registration Act requires states to finish any program that systematically removes ineligible voters from the rolls at least 90 days before a federal election (52 U.S.C. § 20507(c)(2)(A)). For the November 3, 2026 election, California says that window began August 5, 2026. The proposed intervenors argue DOJ’s demand is an attempt to get around that rule; DOJ’s complaint does not address it.
Who is trying to join the case?
Two groups of organizations have asked to intervene as defendants alongside California: Services, Immigrant Rights and Education Network (SIREN) and Mi Familia en Acción, filed October 15, 2026, and LULAC, the NAACP, the NAACP California/Hawaii State Conference and the NAACP Los Angeles Branch, filed October 16, 2026. The court has not ruled on either motion.
Is this a class action, and is there anything to claim?
No. United States v. California is a lawsuit brought by the federal government against a state and a county election official. It is not a class action, it does not seek money for voters, and there is no settlement or claim process.
Sources
- United States v. State of California, No. 2:26-cv-12025 — docket, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (CourtListener)
- Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, filed October 15, 2026
- Motion to Intervene by SIREN and Mi Familia en Acción, filed October 15, 2026
- Motion to Intervene by LULAC and NAACP organizations, filed October 16, 2026
- Common Cause v. U.S. Department of Justice, No. 1:26-cv-01352 (D.D.C.) — docket (CourtListener)
- California Secretary of State — November 3, 2026 General Election
- CBS News — DOJ letter to California officials on mail ballots (October 14, 2026)
- The New York Times — Nevada officials’ response to DHS noncitizen list (September 24, 2026)
