A federal appeals court in the United States rejected the Trump administration's attempt to lift the restrictions imposed on certain Department of Homeland Security (DHS) operations against U.S. citizens during the election period. The decision keeps the limits in place in nine states until the polls close on November 3.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Friday to deny the stay request made by the Government in the case California Nurses Association v. Mullin.
The judges also declared a request for administrative suspension moot, so the court order will remain in effect while the legislative elections take place.
The resolution affects California, Connecticut, Georgia, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wisconsin, where federal agents had conducted investigations related to individuals suspected of registering or voting illegally without possessing U.S. citizenship.
Specifically, the order prevents the DHS from carrying out certain field operations and election-related interrogations when they involve, or are likely to involve, individuals whom the agents know, suspect, or reasonably should suspect are U.S. citizens.
The restriction also applies to operations solely based on certain records from the federal TECS database, generated through the electoral eligibility data comparison system, when the individuals being investigated are known or reasonably identifiable as citizens.
The case is especially relevant for naturalized citizens, including Cuban immigrants who have obtained U.S. citizenship and reside in any of the nine affected states.
The court documents describe investigations targeting individuals suspected of having registered or voted before obtaining citizenship, even though they are currently U.S. citizens.
The controversy arose from an initiative by the DHS aimed at identifying alleged cases of illegal electoral participation by foreigners.
According to the documents examined by the court, the program uses large volumes of information from electoral records and other databases to compile lists of individuals who may later be questioned by federal agents.
The judges indicated that the procedure poses risks of errors in citizenship identification, particularly when incomplete or outdated records are used.
The resolution states that some naturalized individuals may be incorrectly classified as foreigners in the information used to select research targets.
The lawsuit was filed in September by the California Nurses Association, National Nurses United, the Voto Latino Foundation, and local authorities in California.
The plaintiffs argued that home visits and interrogations could intimidate American citizens and discourage their participation in electoral activities.
The court found that members of nursing organizations had presented sufficient evidence that the fear of these operations impacted their participation in campaign events, voter mobilization activities, and other election-related initiatives.
The controversy centers on section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act, a federal provision that prohibits intimidating, threatening, or coercing individuals for voting or assisting others in exercising their electoral rights.
The Government had requested the suspension of the precautionary measure, considering that it interfered with the powers of the Executive Branch to investigate potential electoral crimes. It also questioned the scope of the order and argued that its restrictions could hinder the functions of federal agencies.
However, the judges concluded that the authorities did not demonstrate that maintaining the restriction during the remaining days until the elections would cause them irreparable harm.
The court found that the order was sufficiently defined, both by the states and individuals to whom it applied and by its duration.
The decision does not imply a general prohibition on investigations into electoral fraud. The judges noted that the DHS retains the ability to investigate alleged violations through other legal procedures, without resorting to the specific actions that have been restricted.
That same Friday, the court dismissed the request to reconsider the decision before the full bench of its judges, after the proposal failed to receive the necessary majority support.
The denial was accompanied by a dissenting opinion from Judge Sarah Tung, supported by other magistrates, who questioned whether the order limited the government's investigations into possible electoral violations. This minority position did not change the outcome of the court.
The decision by the Ninth Circuit upholds the preliminary injunction issued on October 21 by federal judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín, who had set limits in response to the risk of intimidation against U.S. voters.
The organization Protect Democracy, which represents the plaintiffs, celebrated the decision and stated that home investigations could discourage electoral participation among American citizens, both native-born and naturalized.
The measure remains provisional and does not constitute a final ruling on the legality of the entire DHS research program.
According to the courts, it will automatically expire when the polls close on Tuesday, November 3, 2026.
Related videos:
Filed under: