Photo by Edmond Dantès on Pexels · Pexels License
In the final days before the November 3 midterms, a federal judge in California did something remarkable: she ordered the President's own Justice Department to stop threatening the people who count our votes.
U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson ruled late Friday that the Trump administration's campaign against California election officials likely violates the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the landmark law passed specifically to stop the government from intimidating voters and the people who help them vote. Her temporary restraining order bars the DOJ from threatening, intimidating, or coercing state and local election workers, and from demanding they set aside ballots the federal government suspects were cast by noncitizens. The order runs through November 16, with a follow-up hearing set for November 13.
Thompson's language was blunt. "Although Defendants claim that their actions are designed to halt unlawful voting by noncitizens," she wrote, "their actions are likely to have the effect of interfering with election administration and disenfranchising lawful voters."
That sentence is the whole story in miniature.
The sequence matters. On October 15, the Justice Department, working with the Department of Homeland Security, sued California after flagging more than 20,000 registered voters it called "likely aliens." Because California mails a ballot to every registered voter, the DOJ demanded the state set those ballots aside. A federal judge refused on October 28, warning that the request would "wreak havoc on voting" and violated longstanding constitutional principles giving states control over their own elections. The Ninth Circuit rejected the administration's appeal two days later. Then came Thompson's order, the first to legally bar the threats themselves.
But the pressure campaign runs deeper than one lawsuit. According to the case brought by labor unions and civil rights groups, the Justice Department issued grand jury subpoenas to election officials in Los Angeles County. Harmeet Dhillon, who runs the DOJ's Civil Rights Division, sent letters to all 50 states and Washington, D.C., in July threatening criminal prosecution of local election officials. And in September, a coalition including the NAACP, the National Urban League, and the SEIU filed a separate federal lawsuit arguing that administration statements about deploying ICE and federal law enforcement around elections have put voters of color in reasonable fear of interference at the polls. President Trump himself, asked in May whether he would send ICE or National Guard troops to polling locations, answered that he would "do anything necessary" to ensure honest elections.
Here is what a smart reader should notice: the legal theory keeps losing, and the campaign keeps going. The administration has now lost at the district court, lost at the appeals court, and been slapped with a restraining order. Its "likely noncitizen" list has not been validated in any court. Yet none of that defeats the strategy if the strategy is fear itself. A subpoena does not need to produce an indictment to make a county registrar think twice. A letter threatening prosecution does not need legal merit to make a poll worker quit. A rumor of ICE near a polling site does not need to be true to keep a naturalized citizen home on Election Day.
This is the part that connects to history. The Voting Rights Act exists because its authors understood that intimidation works even when it fails legally. The literacy tests and poll taxes of the Jim Crow era were paired with something harder to litigate: an atmosphere. Sheriff's deputies near the courthouse. Economic reprisals. The quiet understanding that voting carried risk. Black and Latino voters, and immigrant communities with mixed-status families, carry that memory, and advocacy groups are explicitly invoking it now. When a judge cites the 1965 Act against the sitting government's own lawyers, that is a signal worth taking seriously.
The administration has its answer ready. A DOJ spokesperson complained of a "two-track system of justice," noting that the restraining order came without a full hearing while the department's own election claims have been delayed. Attorney General Todd Blanche frames the California suit as stopping "state-facilitated voter fraud." The administration has appealed Thompson's order to the Ninth Circuit.
The skepticism is warranted, though, because the administration has produced no court-validated evidence that any of the 20,000 flagged Californians actually voted illegally, and noncitizen voting in federal elections is already a crime that studies and past investigations have consistently found to be rare. The mismatch between the scale of the alleged problem and the scale of the federal response is the tell. If the goal were genuinely clean voter rolls, there are quiet, post-election processes for that. Demanding ballot segregation in late October, subpoenaing election workers days before voting ends, and floating ICE at the polls serve a different function: they raise the psychological cost of participation.
What happens next is a race between the courts and the calendar. Thompson's order holds through mid-November, the appeals court will weigh in, and the NAACP coalition's case over federal agents at polling places is still pending. But ballots are being cast right now, and fear operates on its own schedule.
Free Game Takeaway
If you are voting, know the practical facts: it is illegal under federal law for armed federal agents, including ICE, to be stationed at polling places to influence an election, and a federal judge has barred the DOJ from threatening election workers through November 16. If you encounter intimidation at a polling site, document it and report it to the nonpartisan Election Protection hotline (866-OUR-VOTE) and your county elections office. Election workers and officials should know that judicial protection now exists against federal prosecution threats tied to ballot processing. Watch two dates: the November 13 hearing in Judge Thompson's courtroom and the Ninth Circuit's ruling on the administration's appeal. The larger lesson is that the most durable form of voter suppression is the kind that never shows up in court records, because a person scared away from voting leaves no ballot to count and no case to file. Turnout itself is the counter-strategy.