Trump Administration Challenges California Over Noncitizen Voting

The Trump administration is pursuing legal action against California over election procedures for voters suspected of being noncitizens, raising questions about federal authority over congressional elections. In a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice, the administration seeks to require state election officials to separate mailed ballots associated with approximately 20,000 registered voters it believes are not U.S. citizens.

The dispute, reported by SCOTUSblog on October 27, 2026, remains before a federal district court after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit rejected the Justice Department's emergency appeal. The appeals court cited the district court's lack of sufficient opportunity to issue a ruling, leaving the underlying legal questions unresolved.

The Justice Department relies on 18 U.S.C. § 611, a federal criminal statute prohibiting noncitizens from voting in federal elections. However, the case raises separate questions about whether Congress has constitutional authority to establish voter qualifications and whether the statute permits federal officials to intervene in state election administration.

SCOTUSblog's analysis identifies a constitutional distinction between determining who may vote and regulating how elections are conducted. Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution allows Congress to regulate the manner of congressional elections, including by overriding state procedures, while Article I, Section 2 and the 17th Amendment connect voter qualifications for congressional elections to those established for the most numerous branch of each state's legislature.

The analysis argues that this framework leaves states with authority over voter qualifications, subject to constitutional restrictions. The 15th Amendment prohibits racial discrimination in voting, the 19th Amendment protects against sex discrimination, the 24th Amendment bars poll taxes in federal elections, and the 26th Amendment protects the voting rights of citizens aged 18 and older.

Under this interpretation, a state could extend voting rights beyond the minimum constitutional requirements. The analysis gives the example of a state allowing 16-year-old citizens to vote in state legislative elections, which would also qualify them to vote in that state's congressional elections under the constitutional provisions governing voter qualifications.

The same reasoning could apply to noncitizens if a state chose to permit them to vote for its legislature. Although no state currently allows noncitizens to vote for the lower house of its state legislature, the analysis contends that the Constitution would also extend such eligibility to congressional elections in that state.

The Supreme Court addressed the distinction between voter qualifications and election procedures in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., a 2013 case involving the National Voter Registration Act. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the court's opinion, explaining the limits of congressional authority under the Elections Clause.

Scalia wrote, "Arizona is correct that the Elections Clause empowers Congress to regulate how federal elections are held, but not who may vote in them."

The opinion distinguished the authority to regulate election administration from the power to establish voter qualifications. Scalia also cited Alexander Hamilton's The Federalist No. 60 when discussing the constitutional limits on congressional power.

Scalia wrote, "Prescribing voting qualifications, therefore, ‘forms no part of the power to be conferred upon the national government’ by the Elections Clause, which is ‘expressly restricted to the regulation of the times, the places, and the manner of elections’"

He further explained the historical concern about concentrating control over the electorate in Congress, citing James Madison's warning about the potential consequences of allowing lawmakers to determine the qualifications of their own voters.

Scalia wrote, "This allocation of authority sprang from the Framers’ aversion to concentrated power. A Congress empowered to regulate the qualifications of its own electorate, Madison warned, could ‘by degrees subvert the Constitution.’”

The constitutional dispute coincides with warnings from the Aleph Institute, which has urged non-U.S. citizens not to vote in elections. In a notice published October 26, 2026, the organization emphasized that receiving a ballot or registering to vote does not establish eligibility to participate in federal elections.

The Aleph Institute's notice states, "Green card? Visa? Any status? NO," emphasizing its warning that immigration status does not make a noncitizen eligible to vote in federal elections.

The organization also cautioned, "Getting a ballot does NOT mean you are allowed to vote."

According to the Aleph Institute, noncitizens have faced arrest, detention by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and deportation proceedings after voting, including cases involving individuals who did not know they were ineligible. The organization recommends that people uncertain about their eligibility seek advice from an experienced immigration attorney.

The Aleph Institute describes itself as a nonprofit organization rather than a law firm and says it does not provide legal representation. The California lawsuit remains pending in federal district court, with the dispute potentially reaching the Supreme Court as the case progresses.