Service Employees International Union, et al. v. U.S. Department of Justice, et al.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
In This Resource
In the months leading up to the 2026 midterm elections, the Trump administration repeatedly attempted to assert authority over state-run elections. With Election Day approaching, the administration turned its attention to election officials, asking them to implement its desired procedures and threatening them with prosecution if they refused.
In October, the U.S. Department of Justice sued California election officials, seeking to force them to set aside tens of thousands of ballots based on unfounded allegations that thousands of noncitizens were registered to vote. Days later, the administration made similar allegations against Washington state. Federal officials threatened to prosecute individual election officials who refused to comply with their demands.
On Oct. 29, a group of labor unions and nonprofit organizations sued the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security, asking a federal judge to order a stop to the administration’s threats.
The lawsuit argued that the Constitution gives states—not the president—the authority to administer elections and that the Justice Department’s demands amounted to unlawful intimidation under federal voting rights law.
“The Executive Branch has no constitutional authority to unilaterally impose elections demands on state officials—and certainly no authority to engage in intimidation, threats, and coercion of local election officials for conducting an election in the manner required by federal and state law,” the lawsuit further argues.
The next day, a federal judge sided with the unions, temporarily blocking the administration from making intimidating or threatening demands of election officials.
“One of the hallmarks of a fair election is the freedom to exercise the right to vote free from threat, fear, or intimidation,” the judge wrote in her ruling.
With voting already underway, she warned of the consequences of allowing the threats to continue: “Given the consequences of inaction, the Court sees no reason to delay its ruling.”
The Trump administration is appealing the decision.
On Nov. 2, 2026, a bipartisan group of 18 former election officials represented by States United filed an amicus brief in the appeal, urging the court to ensure the Trump administration ceases threatening election officials in the midst of an ongoing election in order to have them comply with its demands.
Based on their collective experience running elections, the officials explain how the Trump administration’s demands can be intimidating in an already heightened threat environment, seek to upend state and federal law, are infeasible to implement with so little time before an election, and risk disenfranchising voters. Diverting election officials’ time, resources, and energy—during their busiest time of the year—would be extremely disruptive to the administration of the midterms, they argue.
“The increased federal pressure and threats on election officials that precipitated this case are part of a pattern by the administration of attempting to assert authority over elections and questioning the integrity of state and local officials,” the group writes. “In our collective experience as election officials, we have never seen such a concerted fixation by the federal government on election workers through letters, subpoenas, press conferences, and social media posts, threatening them with imprisonment if they do not accede to certain demands.”
- The New York Times: Judge Bars Trump Administration From Threatening to Prosecute Election Workers in California
- ABC News: California election workers describe toll of DOJ threats in court filings
- Democracy Docket: Unions sue DOJ over ‘unprecedented and unlawful threats’ against California election officials