Posted on 11/02/2026 10:32:10 PM PST by Steven W.
Before: Mary H. Murguia, Chief Judge, and Consuelo M. Callahan and Carlos T. Bea, Circuit Judges. BEA, Circuit Judge: Dissent by Chief Judge MURGUIA
Pursuant to Circuit Rule 27-3, Defendants-Appellants (“the Government”) has moved for an immediate administrative stay and a stay pending appeal of the district court’s grant of a temporary restraining order in favor of Plaintiffs-Appellees. We have jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). The Government’s motion is GRANTED.
(Excerpt) Read more at cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov ...
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
“ Pursuant to Circuit Rule 27-3, Defendants-Appellants (“the Government”) has
moved for an immediate administrative stay and a stay pending appeal of the district
court’s grant of a temporary restraining order in favor of Plaintiffs-Appellees. We
FILED
NOV 2 2026
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 26-7303
have jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). The Government’s
motion is GRANTED.
For some reason, I can’t copy the portion of the decision I want to, but in this case, the 9th did right, and drop kicked the lower court’s decicion.
Go to the bottom of page 5 in the link.
good. let’s hope the DOJ is up to implementing it.
GOOD!
Scare the shiite out of them and throw them all in jail on election day!
This election fraud by Islamocommies must END.
Two Dubya judges - and of course the Clinton/Obama “judge” dissented...
-PJ
Wow, actual breaking news in the breaking news list! They better get rid of it quick! Someone might get the idea there’s an election going on or something.
Of course, the original stooge was a Biden lickspittle - P. Casey “It’s The” Pitts.
The way i understand it Plaintiffs are Unions who try to protect their members from threats of prosecution.
From the order:
“Plaintiffs filed an ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) to enjoin the Government from making any further requests for ballot sequestration or
“threats” of prosecution. D. Ct. Dkt. 17.”
It’s not about enjoining the State of California itself to sequester votes. The DOJ tried that but was unsuccesful by the looks of it https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/26/26A624/431463/20261102111302952_California%20Application.pdf
-PJ
Did you see Front Page News? It has picked up speed since October 30th with 10 new articles.
You are right.
My Post was in response to the question in post 7:
“To clarify, the 9th circuit blocked the district court’s order that California doesn’t have to sequester and preserve the ballots of suspected non-citizen voters? California must preserve thee ballots of these people for further review of their eligibility to vote?”
To that the answer, in my understanding, is no. Please disregard the link in my original post. This is the correct one https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/11/trump-administration-asks-supreme-court-to-intervene-in-california-ballots-dispute/.
The case reported by OP is a different one. Plaintiffs asked the Courts to stop the Government pressuring their union members by threats.
So does CA have to sequester the ballots of suspected-ineligible voters?
“So does CA have to sequester the ballots of suspected-ineligible voters?”
____________________________________________________________
No, the Supreme Court already looked at that and kicked it back down. This is a lawsuit by the government employees against the federal government to prevent anyone even asking the employees for documents. I suppose they could pantomime the request.
Hopefully not too little too late.
How many (if any?) have been separated already?
-PJ
What’s to stop them from just swapping those ballots for legit ones and handing those over with “Here’s the ballots you wanted.”? Could be going on right now.
This holds that the Federal officials do not commit a crime by asking.
Because the States are free to refuse the request, the states’ constitutional authority to regulate their elections is unaffected.
SEIU v DoJ, 9th Cir, (2 Nov 2026)
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/11/02/26-7303.pdf
At 6:
The Government is also likely to prevail on Plaintiffs’ Elections Clause claim. The Elections Clause assigns to the states the authority “to prescribe the manner by which congressional elections are conducted.” United States v. California, ___ F. 4th ____, 2026 WL 3268272, at *3 (9th Cir. Oct. 30, 2026). In this case, the Government requested that the targeted states sequester certain ballots. They refused, and that refusal was ratified by this Court, see generally id., and the Supreme Court declined to grant emergency relief, United States v. California, 610 U.S. __ (Nov. 2, 2026). The states’ constitutional authority to regulate their elections is therefore unaffected. See Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 935 (1997) (holding that the federal government may request, but not compel, the states to enact or enforce a federal program).Plaintiffs treat California as dispositive on this point. The present case, however, poses a different question from that posed to the California panel: there, the panel decided whether a state must adopt the ballot-sequestration process requested by the Government here. California, ___ F. 4th ____, 2026 WL 3268272, at *1. Here, we consider only whether the Government can make such a request in the first place. And as we explained above, we think that the Government has established that it likely can. We find these requests to be core Executive functions that did not actually disturb the states’ regulation of their own elections.
Thank you! I couldn’t make out what this thing was about
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.