Ninth Circuit: Dismisses Trump California Election Appeal Over Procedural Missteps

• The Ninth Circuit dismissed the Trump administration's emergency appeal regarding California election votes, citing a lack of jurisdiction.
• The court found the government created a "self-constructed emergency" by providing the trial judge only 15 hours to consider a temporary restraining order before appealing.
• The Trump administration sought to prevent the counting of votes from individuals it claimed might be non-citizens, alleging a violation of the Supremacy Clause.
• The Department of Homeland Security had claimed up to 190,000 non-citizens were on California's voter rolls, but the government delayed filing suit until October 15.
• U.S. Circuit Judge Mark Bennett, a Trump appointee, separately suggested the government would likely not have prevailed on the merits even if jurisdiction existed.

Lawyers and compliance officers should note that meticulous adherence to procedural rules is paramount when seeking expedited relief, as a failure to properly present issues to the trial court first will likely result in a lack of appellate jurisdiction.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently dismissed an emergency appeal filed by the Trump administration, which had sought to compel California to disregard votes cast by individuals the administration contended might not be U.S. citizens. This significant ruling, issued on a Monday following an unusual Sunday hearing, found that the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to intervene at such an early stage of the proceedings.

The three-judge panel, in a per curiam order, determined that the federal government had presented its request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to the trial judge with insufficient time for proper consideration before immediately appealing. Specifically, the government allowed the trial judge only 15 hours to review its expedited request, a timeframe the appellate court found procedurally inadequate for an emergency injunction. This procedural misstep was central to the Ninth Circuit's decision to dismiss the Trump California election appeal.

A key aspect of the Ninth Circuit's decision was its characterization of the government's urgency as a "self-constructed emergency." The court pointed to several factors contributing to this situation, including the United States' own delay in initiating the lawsuit. Furthermore, the government was cited for its belated recognition of existing California state laws governing ballot issuance and processing, its apparent lack of awareness regarding the state's millions of registered voters and their established ballot processing schedule, and its failure to clearly communicate the specific relief it sought from the court.

This finding underscored the appellate panel's view that the government's procedural missteps created the very emergency it was attempting to address through an expedited appeal. The panel ultimately granted the request from the Los Angeles County registrar-recorder/county clerk to dismiss the appeal, effectively upholding the lower court's ability to hear the matter first.

The Trump administration's challenge was rooted in claims that California was violating the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution by allegedly facilitating votes from non-citizens, thereby undermining the federal prohibition against non-citizens participating in federal elections. The Department of Homeland Security had asserted in July that as many as 190,000 non-citizens were present on California's voter rolls. However, the government waited until October 15 to file its lawsuit, seeking to prevent the counting of approximately 20,000 votes until their citizenship status could be verified.

Initially, the government requested a decision on its temporary restraining order bid by November 3. U.S. District Judge David Carter scheduled a hearing for the Tuesday afternoon following the Ninth Circuit's ruling to address this request. However, on the evening of October 21, the government abruptly asked Judge Carter to issue a decision by noon the next day, citing its recent discovery that Los Angeles County had already counted 331,000 mail-in ballots since October 5. Seth Waxman, an attorney representing the LA County registrar, argued during the Sunday hearing that it was implausible the Justice Department was unaware of the county's well-publicized early ballot counting process, which is a standard requirement.

While the Ninth Circuit's decision primarily rested on jurisdictional grounds, U.S. Circuit Judge Mark Bennett, a Donald Trump appointee, issued a separate opinion. Judge Bennett indicated that even if the appellate panel had possessed jurisdiction over the government's non-citizen voting California appeal, it was improbable that the administration would have succeeded on the merits of its case. He affirmed that federal and California law unequivocally prohibit non-citizens from voting, but clarified that the dispute centered on the procedures for enforcing this prohibition, which implicates the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

This ruling highlights that appellate courts, including the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, rigorously examine the procedural posture and timing of emergency requests. The court's emphasis on the government's creation of its own emergency through delays and insufficient notice to Judge David Carter underscores that 'self-constructed emergencies' are unlikely to garner appellate jurisdiction. Lawyers and compliance officers should note that meticulous adherence to procedural rules is paramount when seeking expedited relief, as a failure to properly present issues to the trial court first will likely result in a lack of appellate jurisdiction. California Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom welcomed the ruling, calling it a "positive development" and a "welcome speed bump" to what he described as attacks on the Constitution and democracy.

Lawyers and compliance officers should note that even in high-stakes cases, appellate courts strictly scrutinize the procedural posture and timing of emergency requests. This ruling underscores that 'self-constructed emergencies' due to delays in filing or presenting to the trial court will likely result in a lack of appellate jurisdiction, emphasizing the need for meticulous adherence to procedural rules when seeking expedited relief.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News Service