The Ninth Circuit on October 30 refused to lift a preliminary injunction that sharply restricts the Trump administration’s investigations into potential noncitizen voting in nine states, leaving the block in place through Election Day.
A majority of nonrecused active judges declined en banc rehearing of the panel’s order denying a stay.
Seven judges, led by Judge Eric Tung and joined by Judges Consuelo Callahan, Ryan Nelson, Daniel Collins, Daniel Bress, Patrick Bumatay, and Lawrence VanDyke, dissented forcefully.
As The Gateway Pundit previously reported, Biden-appointed U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín (Northern District of California) issued the sweeping preliminary injunction on October 21 in California Nurses Association et al. v. Mullin et al.
The order bars DHS, ICE, USCIS, HSI, and related officials from conducting elections-related field operations and field interviews in California, Connecticut, Georgia, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wisconsin when those operations “involve or are likely to involve” persons the government “know[s], suspect[s], or should reasonably know or suspect are U.S. citizens.”
It also restricts operations based wholly on certain TECS records generated under the administration’s Voter Eligibility Matching Policy. The injunction runs through November 3, 2026 (Election Day).
The plaintiffs, primarily the California Nurses Association and National Nurses United, along with San Francisco, Santa Clara County, and Voto Latino, claimed the investigations intimidated voters and those assisting them in violation of Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act.
The district court found associational standing for the nurses’ groups based on member declarations about fear of being wrongly targeted, and it treated investigation of suspected illegal voting as the functional equivalent of prohibited intimidation. Standing was rejected for the other plaintiffs at this stage.
Judge Tung’s dissent, filed with the en banc denial order, pulls no punches. “By enjoining the government from even investigating illegal voting, the district court departed from its limited role, and trampled on the President’s in the process,” he wrote.
“And by relying on section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act … it confused investigation for intimidation.”
He emphasized that federal law already prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections (18 U.S.C. § 611), with criminal and immigration consequences, and that Article II gives the President “exclusive authority and absolute discretion” to decide which crimes to investigate and prosecute.
“The district court here installed itself as a super-executive responsible for deciding when investigations are really in the public interest,” Tung added. “Federal courts do not exercise general legal oversight of the … Executive Branch[].”
The dissent further argued that the plaintiffs lack standing under Supreme Court precedents such as Clapper v. Amnesty International (speculative future injury and self-inflicted harm do not suffice), that Section 11(b) creates no private right of action (enforcement belongs to the Attorney General), and that the statute does not apply to the United States itself under longstanding interpretive presumptions. Even if it did, lawful investigations of suspected unlawful voting are not “intimidation … for voting.”
The injunction, the dissenters said, is both vague and dramatically overbroad under Rule 65, effectively hamstringing most election-related field work in the targeted states and raising a reverse “reasonable suspicion” barrier that makes lawful probes nearly impossible without risk of contempt.
The underlying effort traces to President Trump’s March 2025 Executive Order 14248 directing prioritization of enforcement against illegal voting, followed by DHS’s Unlawful Voter Initiative and August 2026 Surge Initiative Guidance focused on the nine states.
USCIS compares voter data against immigration and other records, conducts manual review to exclude citizens, and refers potential cases to HSI for further assessment and possible field interviews, steps the dissent describes as layered and independent, not a dragnet.
The three-judge panel that initially refused to suspend the injunction consisted of Judges Sidney Thomas, Kim McLane Wardlaw, and Anthony Johnstone.
The panel concluded that the Trump administration had not established the irreparable harm necessary to justify an emergency stay.
The judges cited evidence that the federal initiative relied on potentially inaccurate citizenship data and that some American citizens had stopped participating in election-related activities because they feared being wrongly targeted by federal investigators.
According to the panel, DHS’s investigation included rapidly reviewing potentially inaccurate voter records, conducting field interviews, and publicizing enforcement activity.
The panel also determined that the government had not demonstrated that the injunction would make all lawful voter fraud investigations impossible.
The seven dissenting judges disputed that assessment, arguing that the government suffers an irreparable injury when a court improperly restricts its enforcement of federal law.
The dispute is particularly significant because the injunction is scheduled to expire when polling closes on November 3, leaving only a narrow window for further emergency judicial intervention.
The post Ninth Circuit REFUSES to Lift Restrictions on Trump’s Voter Fraud Investigations in NINE STATES Ahead of Midterms — SEVEN Judges Issue Blistering Dissent, Accuse Court of “Trampling” Presidential Authority appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.