The U.S. Department of Justice in a federal court hearing Tuesday warned California election officials could be prosecuted if they count ballots cast by noncitizen voters, in a case brought by the Trump administration demanding that the state set aside the ballots of 20,000 suspected noncitizen voters.

The remark by a DOJ lawyer about “criminal liability” for election officials who process ballots drew a sharp rebuke from the judge presiding over the hearing.

“This court believes it would be wise — it would be wise that any threats to the state, county elected employees cease immediately,” Judge David Carter said from the bench.

The extraordinary argument from DOJ came as President Donald Trump’s last-minute push to assert authority over voting encounters skepticism and resistance from federal judges less than a week before Election Day. Trump faces political defeat if Republicans lose one or both chambers of Congress in the midterm elections.

Carter, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, held the hearing in the Justice Department’s lawsuit that seeks to force California election officials to segregate and not count ballots from the list of 20,000 unless they can prove their citizenship. 

Carter adjourned an hours-long hearing in Los Angeles by promising a decision Wednesday. Before adjourning, Carter urged the Justice Department to drop the menacing rhetoric.

Possibly heading to Supreme Court

Carter’s ruling — whatever he decides — will almost certainly be appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and, possibly, the U.S. Supreme Court. A three-judge panel of the appeals court has already ruled against the Justice Department once in the case.

During the hearing, Bill Essayli, the first assistant U.S. attorney for the Central District of California, raised the prospect that election officials could be criminally exposed if they move forward with counting the ballots.

“What they cannot do is knowingly count ballots when they have specific information that these individuals are noncitizens. That they cannot do,” Essayli said, adding that “they would be criminally liable if they knowingly process a ballot of a noncitizen. They would have the same criminal liability of the person who voted.”

Anne Bellows, a lawyer for California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, a Democrat, said that even though the Justice Department refers to the list as “likely” noncitizens, the court heard Essayli “threaten elections officials with criminal prosecution if they tabulate the ballots of those on this list.”

Christopher Pelham, a lawyer for Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean Logan, said the prospect that state and local election officials could face federal “trouble” for processing ballots “is chilling for them.”

List of suspected noncitizens

Earlier this month, the Justice Department provided a list of 20,000 California voters it said were suspected noncitizens and gave state and local officials 48 hours to review. When state and local election officials refused to act immediately, the DOJ sued to force election officials to segregate ballots from those voters and not count them unless they could prove their citizenship.

Carter appeared to signal he is skeptical of the Justice Department’s emergency request. At one point, he suggested he was inclined to set a hearing within the next couple weeks — likely after the election — for a deeper exploration of how the list of 20,000 people was compiled and its reliability. 

He indicated that would give time for a fuller examination of the issues at play but wrap up before Dec. 3, when California officials must certify election results.

Court documents filed by the Justice Department indicate the U.S. Department of Homeland Security developed the list based on a public California voter roll the agency obtained. 

In a court declaration filed Monday, Nicolas Bartelli, associate director of the Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, a sub-agency of DHS, wrote that the agency “enhanced” the voter data using the research service LexisNexis.

‘The stakes here are enormous’

Essayli told the court that the Justice Department’s case would rise and fall on the credibility of the evidence. He said that once California officials were informed about the likely noncitizen voters, they must act.

“It means something to be a United States citizen. It means something to participate in an election,” Essayli said. “We want to make sure those interests are safeguarded.”

Lawyers for Weber and Logan sharply criticized the Justice Department’s arguments during the hearing. They voiced deep reservations over how the list was compiled and cast the DOJ’s move as an encroachment on California’s authority to run its elections.

The U.S. Constitution assigns states the responsibility of administering elections. Congress can override state rules and regulations, but the executive branch has no unilateral power to intervene absent authority from Congress.

The DOJ has pointed to a federal misdemeanor crime against noncitizen voting as justification for segregating ballots. 

But attorneys for the election officials argued the prohibition doesn’t preempt California’s state election laws, which also include a ban on noncitizen voting. Voters in California must attest under penalty of perjury they are a citizen and qualified to vote.

Bellows described the consequences in the case as sweeping. Los Angeles County election officials have written in court declarations that segregating ballots would lead to potentially “catastrophic” problems.

“The stakes here are enormous,” Bellows said, arguing that the DOJ’s demand risks disenfranchising voters.

The U.S. Department of Justice plans to send election monitors to every state ahead of Election Day, expanding a long-standing practice that’s spurred concern this year among Democrats and voting rights advocates because of President Donald Trump’s push to influence elections.

The Justice Department for decades has deployed monitors across the country to watch the voting process. During President Joe Biden’s administration, the DOJ sent monitors to 64 jurisdictions across 24 states for the 2022 midterm elections.

The 2026 monitoring program is larger, with the Justice Department announcing it will have a presence in all 50 states. DOJ spokesperson Kiersten Pels told States Newsroom on Monday that about 1,000 monitors will be involved but that the department won’t disclose the full list of monitored locations until Election Day — Nov. 3.

“Every monitor will merely observe and report any potential violations of federal law to the Department, which will be reviewed after Election Day,” Pels said in a statement.

Lawsuits prompt unease

While election monitors, who watch polling places and election officials for compliance with federal voting rights laws, have long been a feature of U.S. elections, the Trump administration’s extraordinary moves to assert federal authority over state-run elections have left many Democrats and even some Republicans uneasy about this year’s expansive effort.

The Justice Department has sued dozens of states in an attempt to force election officials to turn over voter lists that contain sensitive personal data, such as driver’s license and Social Security numbers. The DOJ has lost 27 cases so far, and won none.

Less than two weeks ago, the Justice Department sued California to block election officials from counting ballots from roughly 20,000 voters it says are suspected noncitizens. 

And on Friday, the DOJ sued Alaska to preemptively prevent the certification of its U.S. Senate election if the Republican incumbent loses by less than the number of votes received by another candidate of the same name, citing the potential for voter confusion.

But concerns about DOJ monitors began building in August after Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon, a Republican, expressed reservations about monitors, calling their actions “very odd” after DOJ personnel watched voting in the state’s primary election. 

Andrew Walchuk, senior policy director and counsel for voting & fair representation at the watchdog group Common Cause, told reporters last month that monitors in and of themselves are nothing new, pointing to the long history of the DOJ’s monitoring program.

“But with this administration, we will be watching their activity very closely,” Walchuk said.

1,000 monitors, 95,000 polling places

Election experts have emphasized that even with a 1,000 monitors, the Justice Department presence across the country will be far too small to interfere with voting on a wide scale. For example, the 2024 election included more than 95,000 polling places, according to survey data from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

“The math just ain’t mathing,” Harry Black, a senior counsel at the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, said during a panel discussion on the midterms earlier this month at the University of Pittsburgh.

In early October, the NAACP sued the Justice Department for records about the election monitoring program. In their complaint, lawyers for the NAACP argued that the “unprecedented deployment” of federal officials could jeopardize the election and interfere with the right of voters to cast their ballots without intimidation.

U.S. District Court Judge Sparkle Sooknanan, an appointee of President Joe Biden in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., denied a request by the NAACP for an emergency order directing the DOJ to immediately begin producing records. The underlying lawsuit remains pending.

Local announcements of locations

While the full location list for the election monitors remains closely held, the Justice Department last week began notifying counties that will have monitors. In turn, some state and local election officials have announced where monitors will be present.

In Washington state, DOJ monitors will deploy to King County, which includes Seattle. In Oregon, they’ll be sent to the Portland area.

Salt Lake County in Utah will receive at least one monitor. Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson, a Republican who has clashed with the Trump administration after she refused to hand over voter data, told reporters last week that the Justice Department offered assurances about how the monitors will act.

“They won’t be approaching voters. They won’t be wearing any sort of insignia,” Henderson said.

In Maine, DOJ monitors are expected to be present in Portland and Lewiston. Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, a Democrat, has said her office “will monitor the monitors very carefully to ensure that they don’t cross any lines.”

Pels said all monitors must meet the same legal and ethical requirements, which includes not interfering in the voting process.

“Every monitor has the same role: observe for potential violations of federal law and report concerns to the Department, which the Department will review after Election Day and act where appropriate,” Pels said.

Reporting contributed by Maine Morning Star’s Lauren McCauley and Utah News Dispatch reporter Alixel Cabrera.

President Donald Trump’s 11th-hour campaign to intervene in California’s vote counting encountered its first resistance from federal courts on Monday, with appellate judges ruling against the effort.

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled against a U.S. Department of Justice request for a court order requiring California election officials to segregate and not count the ballots of some 20,000 voters, who federal officials say are suspected noncitizens, until those voters can prove otherwise. The decision, issued Monday, came after rare oral arguments on Sunday.

Two of the three judges sharply questioned a Justice Department lawyer over the demand, as well as the timeline of the agency’s actions. A third judge appeared more sympathetic to the Trump administration’s arguments.

The oral arguments, held virtually, came after the Justice Department said a district court judge hadn’t ruled fast enough on its request for a temporary restraining order to require California officials to set aside the ballots of suspected noncitizens. 

In Monday’s 2-1 decision, the majority wrote that the appeals court lacked jurisdiction over the case because the DOJ “failed to allow the district court adequate opportunity to consider” the request.

One of the appellate judges emphasized on Sunday that the district court judge had swiftly scheduled a hearing, currently set for Tuesday, less than a week after receiving the case.

“I don’t see how we have jurisdiction,” said Judge Mark Bennett, a Trump appointee who often led the skeptical questioning of the DOJ.

Last-minute push

As Election Day approaches, the Trump administration is mounting a furious final bid to assert authority over state and local election officials. 

The Justice Department first demanded immediate action in a last-minute lawsuit that alleges ballots cast by alleged noncitizens in California risk diluting the votes of U.S. citizens. 

It then opened a new front on Friday, preemptively suing Alaska over the future certification of its U.S. Senate race. Democrats and voting rights groups filed a flurry of court papers over the weekend opposing the Alaska lawsuit.

Sunday’s oral arguments in the California case, which lasted nearly two hours, marked the first courtroom showdown in the Trump administration’s new round of preelection legal action. One or both lawsuits could be before the U.S. Supreme Court within days, depending on the speed of lower courts.

An ‘astronomical’ number of ballots

Justice Department attorney Matthew Donnelly told the three-judge panel that the DOJ decided to seek an emergency order after learning how many mail-in ballots election officials were already processing, at least several hundred thousand so far. 

He said the agency hadn’t been aware of what he called the “astronomical” number of ballots as he explained why the DOJ didn’t ask for a temporary restraining order until four days after it first sued California.

“Frankly, we did not appreciate the scale,” Donnelly said, though California is a universal vote-by-mail state that sends a ballot to all voters.

Seth Waxman, a lawyer for Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean Logan, told the court that Donnelly’s assertion was “absurd on its face.” Election officials in California have warned that complying with the Justice Department’s demands so close to Election Day could have catastrophic consequences. 

“The numbers are publicly available,” Waxman said.

Authority over elections

The U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause places the responsibility for administering elections with the states, with Congress retaining the power to override state regulations. 

Donnelly clashed with Bennett over whether the legal basis for the Justice Department’s demands of California, a federal law that makes it a misdemeanor crime for noncitizens to vote in federal elections, represents an instance of Congress asserting its authority over elections.

Donnelly said the federal law preempts California’s action “here that frustrates its purpose” — in other words, the refusal of state and local officials to set aside the suspected noncitizen ballots. 

But Bennett said California law also bans noncitizen voting, and he argued that what Congress passed doesn’t directly change the rules state lawmakers adopted, which require voters to attest under penalty of perjury that they are qualified to vote.

‘An emergency of their own making’

The Trump administration has said the Department of Homeland Security compiled the list of 20,000 suspected noncitizens based on public California voter data it obtained. 

Judge Gabriel Sanchez, an appointee of President Joe Biden, questioned the reliability of the list, noting that federal officials initially told California this summer they believed the state had potentially more than 190,000 noncitizens on its rolls.

“Somehow the district court was supposed to resolve all this in a matter of hours by noon on October 22?” Sanchez said, referring to the deadline the Justice Department requested for a decision from the district court judge.

Samuel Siegel, a lawyer representing California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, a Democrat, told the appeals court the voter list the Trump administration obtained was “wildly outdated.” He said the 9th Circuit has nothing to decide because U.S. District Court Judge David Carter, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, has yet to rule.

“It is an emergency of their own making,” Siegel said of the Justice Department.

Sanchez and Bennett agreed. In a per curiam majority opinion, they wrote the “United States’s claimed emergency, at least in part, is a self-constructed one.”

Judge Patrick Bumatay, a Trump appointee and the only judge on the panel who at times appeared to agree with the Justice Department’s arguments, pushed Siegel on the consequences of not ordering California to set aside the ballots. Donnelly said repeatedly that once the ballots are processed, it becomes impossible to pull them out, even if it later becomes clear they were fraudulently cast.

“Without an injunction, you’ll never know, correct?” Bumatay asked Siegel, who responded that voters must affirm their citizenship.

Bumatay dissented from Monday’s opinion. He wrote that he would have granted the DOJ request.

“The question—does the federal government have the power to stop this potential attack on the integrity of our elections? Under both federal law and the Constitution, the answer must be ‘yes,’” Bumatay wrote.

Carter has promised to rule promptly after a Tuesday hearing on the Justice Department’s request for a temporary restraining order. A denial could prompt the DOJ to appeal again.

The U.S. Department of Justice is stepping up its legal campaign over the midterm elections, suing Alaska over its U.S. Senate election and appealing a lawsuit against suspected noncitizen voters in California.

Election law experts have cast doubt on the strength of the cases, criticizing them as performative.

The Justice Department sued Alaska election officials late Thursday in a preemptive attempt to stop the state from certifying the results of its Senate election if, under the state’s ranked-choice voting method, the Republican incumbent loses by a smaller margin than the votes earned by another candidate of the same name. 

Separately, the Justice Department appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals a lawsuit seeking to prevent California election officials from counting the ballots of approximately 20,000 voters it says are likely noncitizens unless they can prove their citizenship. The DOJ had demanded a district court decision by Thursday.

Collectively, the Justice Department’s actions signal an expanding legal effort to assert authority over voting as Election Day approaches. President Donald Trump faces political peril in the midterms, with Democrats all but certain to launch investigations into his administration if they retake the House or Senate.

The Trump administration’s past attempts to influence how states run elections largely failed, with the U.S. Supreme Court blocking proposed restrictions on mail ballots and federal judges dismissing DOJ lawsuits to obtain states’ sensitive voter data. But in the waning days before the midterm elections, federal officials are again ramping up election-related activity.

“I’m the one that said do it,” Trump, speaking to reporters on Friday, said of the Alaska lawsuit.

Another Dan Sullivan suit

The Alaska lawsuit came hours after U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche refused to rule out efforts to block states from certifying their elections. Speaking to reporters after an unrelated event in Virginia, Blanche said it wasn’t the DOJ’s intention to “improperly interfere” with election certifications even as he left room for his department to act.

“I mean, is there any scenario? Yes, of course there’s scenarios that we could all come up with, hypothetically, you know, some doomsday scenario, for example, right?” Blanche said.

The Alaska Division of Elections and the Justice Department didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

In the Alaska Senate race, Republican Sen. Dan S. Sullivan and his supporters have cast Dan J. Sullivan, also a Republican, as a spoiler in a competitive race against Democrat Mary Peltola. 

State officials initially kept Dan J. Sullivan off the August primary ballot but the Alaska Supreme Court overturned the decision. He finished third, with 2.5% of the vote, qualifying for the four-way general election.

Trump had previewed a possible lawsuit earlier in the week. On Truth Social, the president on Wednesday called the Senate race in Alaska “totally confusing” and slammed Dan J. Sullivan’s presence.

“We are looking at powerful legal options to remove the fraudulent Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. from the Ballot, and holding the Democrats accountable for their Election Interference, in the pursuit of Justice and Fairness,” Trump wrote.

Experts skeptical

Early expert reaction to the Justice Department’s complaint has been sharply critical. The complaint cites the preamble of the National Voter Registration Act, which says one of its purposes is “to protect the integrity of the electoral process.” 

Writing in Election Law Blog, Derek Muller, a professor of law at the University of Notre Dame focused on elections, called the legal argument “one of the worst ones I’ve ever seen.”

“Some, in a panic, might react that the Department is trying to deny certification of an election in a state. Of course that’s what the Department is trying to do. But the legal claim is so absurdly thin, there’s essentially no likelihood of success,” Muller wrote.

California noncitizen case appealed

In California, Assistant U.S. Attorney Julie Hamill filed a notice of appeal in the Justice Department’s lawsuit over alleged noncitizen voters just three days after the the DOJ requested a temporary restraining order to halt ballot counting for individuals on the list of 20,000. 

Hamill wrote that the DOJ was interpreting U.S. District Court Judge David Carter’s silence as a denial of its request. 

Carter, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, had only taken on the case a day earlier and had set a hearing for Oct. 27. Earlier this year, he became the first federal judge in the country to rule against the Justice Department’s lawsuits attempting to force states to turn over sensitive voter data.

On Friday, the Justice Department filed a new motion asking Carter to block the ballot counting and requested a ruling by noon Pacific time. 

In that filing, Hamill wrote that “every minute” of ballot processing that occurs without setting aside ballots of suspected noncitizens dilutes the votes of U.S. citizens.

Case ‘exceedingly weak,’ critics say

Critics of the Justice Department’s actions argue the time crunch is largely of its own making. 

David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research, noted during a press call Thursday that the DOJ didn’t file its lawsuit until more than a week after California began mailing ballots — and then several more days to seek a temporary restraining order.

“I think this case is exceedingly weak,” said Becker, who worked as a senior trial attorney in the Justice Department’s Voting Section during the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.

Attorneys for California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, a Democrat, and Los Angeles Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean Logan have both asked Carter to dismiss the lawsuit. 

Logan’s legal team on Wednesday wrote that Los Angeles County hasn’t changed how it conducts elections. What’s changed, they wrote, was the federal government’s posture.

“Weeks before Election Day, the United States asks this Court to intrude on the administration of an election,” Logan’s lawyers wrote.

National Democrats are suing President Donald Trump, accusing his administration of intimidating election officials and asking a federal court to block him from interfering in the midterm elections.

The lawsuit, filed late Tuesday in Washington, D.C., comes as the Trump administration mounts a highly public offensive against voter fraud in California just two weeks before Election Day and as federal agents face allegations they are questioning people at their homes about their voter status.

The Department of Justice has sued state and local officials, demanding they not count the ballots of roughly 20,000 California voters that the DOJ alleges are noncitizens and suggesting they will face prosecution if they do. The Trump administration is currently scrutinizing an additional 17,000 California voters, according to a court filing.

Jeffries, Schumer sign on 

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who’s in line to become speaker if his party retakes the House, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, along with other Democratic groups and a California voter, allege in their lawsuit that the Trump administration has engaged in a pattern of intimidation intended to frighten officials into complying with unlawful demands to thwart voting.

The executive branch has no authority to assert authority over states’ maintenance of their own voter rolls and determinations of who is qualified to vote, they say. The U.S. Constitution assigns states the responsibility of administering elections.

“Thwarted in Congress and the courts, the administration has now simply disregarded the tools Congress provided it and fashioned its own cudgels instead,” lawyers for the Democrats write in their legal complaint.

The lawsuit names Trump, the Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security and the leaders of both agencies as defendants.

The White House didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Justice Department said in a statement that it enforces federal election law and that election integrity is a top priority. Every action the DOJ has taken related to this year’s elections, the statement said, “is grounded in law and being litigated in open court.”

Homeland Security called the lawsuit a “political stunt.”

Dozens of states unsuccessfully sued by DOJ

Noncitizen voting is a rare phenomenon, studies have consistently found. The Justice Department this week charged 38 noncitizens in California with election crimes, an infinitesimal percentage of registered voters. 

Even if all 20,000 individuals on the DOJ list are noncitizens, it would represent only about 0.08% of the nearly 23.2 million registered voters in California. 

For more than a year, the Trump administration has attempted to influence how states run elections. The Justice Department sued dozens of states — all unsuccessfully — to force them to hand over sensitive data on voters. Homeland Security refashioned a powerful computer program called SAVE into a tool that can verify citizenship, though critics say it falsely flags U.S. citizens.

Trump pushed Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, which would have required voters nationwide to prove their citizenship. The legislation passed the House but encountered bipartisan opposition in the Senate, where a handful of Republicans and Democrats prevented it from advancing.

Trump also attempted to use the U.S. Postal Service to impose national restrictions on voting by mail. The U.S. Supreme Court blocked the Postal Service rules from taking effect ahead of the midterms.

The broad effort has played out as Trump’s political fortunes appear to be dimming. Just 36% of likely voters approve of Trump’s performance, according to a New York Times-Siena University poll released Wednesday. If Democrats retake the House or Senate, they will likely initiate a myriad of investigations into Trump and his administration that could consume the final two years of his term.

New blitz in California

Against that backdrop, the Trump administration has in recent days launched a new voter fraud blitz targeting California, a blue state that mails ballots to all voters. 

Last week the Justice Department provided state and local officials with 20,000 names that it said Homeland Security had identified as likely noncitizens. After giving state officials just 48 hours to act on the list, the DOJ sued. 

On Monday, DOJ attorneys asked for a temporary restraining order that would immediately force California to comply with their demands that these individuals not be provided mail ballots and that their ballots not count unless they offer proof of citizenship. It also suggested in a court filing that Homeland Security could accuse more California voters of being noncitizens.

Nicolas Bartell, associate director of the Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, a sub-agency of Homeland Security, said in a declaration filed in court on Tuesday that USCIS “has identified a separate batch of more than 17,000 voting records potentially tied to noncitizens after an initial review of voter rolls.”

But Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean Logan is casting doubt on the reliability of Homeland Security’s review — and arguing complying with the DOJ’s demands would severely disrupt the election locally.

Logan’s office analyzed a sample of 200 names of the 20,000 provided by the Justice Department. In a court filing, lawyers for Logan wrote that his office found that 25.8% of the sample recorded a U.S. birthplace, a guarantee of citizenship except in extremely limited circumstances. About 71% had never voted.

Monica Flores, the assistant registrar-recorder for the Candidate and Voter Services Bureau, wrote in a court declaration that if forced to comply with the Justice Department’s demands, “it would be virtually impossible to timely certify the election results in compliance with state law.”

‘Fearmongering and intimidation’

California state Sen. Lena Gonzalez, a Democrat, at a news conference on Tuesday called the Trump administration’s efforts an attempt to silence voters. She urged voters not to be afraid.

“This is a federal administration that operates through fearmongering and intimidation,” Gonzalez said.

San Francisco, Santa Clara and several advocacy groups sued Homeland Security in September in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that DHS has authorized broad election-related field operations. Armed agents have been sent to homes to interrogate residents about their voter eligibility, the lawsuit says.

The California Nurses Association, National Nurses United and the Voto Latino Foundation joined the local governments in suing.

A Homeland Security Investigations internal memo dated Aug. 31 describes a “surge initiative” beginning Sept. 1 that includes conducting field interviews. The memo, which was filed in court, identifies California, Georgia, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin as targets of the surge during September. Additional locations are redacted in the document.

“DHS’ stated intention of questioning Americans at their homes weeks before an election is voter intimidation, and protections against this form of harassment extend beyond the polling place,” Hayden Johnson, a lawyer at Protect Democracy, a legal advocacy group representing the plaintiffs, said in a statement when the lawsuit was filed.

Justice Department lawyers have responded in court filings that the plaintiffs haven’t identified a single affected voter. The allegations of intimidation also lack specifics, the DOJ says.

The federal government has statutory authority to investigate potential voting by noncitizens,” DOJ lawyers wrote in a filing. “Enjoining the government from even investigating such criminal violations would damage the public interest, not serve it.”

A hearing on a preliminary injunction in the case was held Monday. No decision was immediately issued.

After the U.S. Department of Justice sued California over its refusal to remove voters the federal government alleges are noncitizens, voting rights advocates fear the Trump administration is violating a court order blocking it from rooting out noncitizens with states’ voter data.

U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan on Oct. 9 ruled against the Justice Department’s year-long project to obtain state’s unredacted voter rolls, which include sensitive personal data, and share them with the Department of Homeland Security to identify possible noncitizens. The DOJ on Friday said it plans to appeal the decision.

In letters sent on Oct. 13, the Justice Department gave California officials 48 hours to review and remove a list of some 20,000 registered voters that the Trump administration believes are noncitizens. 

Many are concentrated in the Los Angeles area, and state and local elections officials both refused to act on the list. The DOJ immediately sued after its deadline passed on Thursday.

The Justice Department’s lawsuit, coming less than three weeks before Election Day and with voting underway in California, amounts to the latest development in President Donald Trump’s efforts to assert authority over elections, which under the U.S. Constitution are administered by the states. Trump faces a deluge of investigations and pushback if Democrats retake one or both chambers of Congress in November.

Democrats and voting rights groups have previously raised alarms about the possibility of the Trump administration attempting to interfere with voting. For some, the legal action against California only exacerbates their concerns. 

Letter sent, hearing requested

On Thursday, several Democratic senators wrote to U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche to demand that the DOJ confirm it won’t seize ballots or other election materials.

The watchdog groups Common Cause and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, which represents voters who sued to block the DOJ’s voter data sharing, have asked Sooknanan to hold a hearing to look into whether the Trump administration’s actions violate her order. They said the DOJ has adopted an “exceedingly narrow view” of her decision.

“By attempting to superintend voter roll list maintenance and prohibit registered voters from exercising the franchise without adequate consideration of the reliability of the underlying data, DOJ’s October 13 letters and the actions described in the California (lawsuit) appear to implicate — and perhaps outright violate” Sooknanan’s order, lawyers for the groups wrote in a court filing.

On Friday, Sooknanan ordered the Justice Department to respond to the request for a hearing in District of Columbia federal court by Monday.

Email exchange

Common Cause and CREW filed in court a late Thursday email exchange with Christian Dibblee, a Justice Department trial attorney, in which Dibblee writes that Homeland Security obtained a publicly available voter roll of California voters — as opposed to the full, unredacted roll that DOJ has sued states over — and that DHS didn’t use the SAVE system to identify possible noncitizens. 

SAVE, a computer system operated by DHS, combs through government databases to verify citizenship, but critics point to examples of the program falsely flagging U.S. citizens. The U.S. Supreme Court in September ruled that states could continue accessing SAVE ahead of the midterm elections, but most states are currently prohibited from conducting mass purges of voters because it’s too close to the election.

Sooknanan’s order “does not extend to using other methods, nor does it prohibit taking enforcement actions based on those other methods,” Dibblee wrote, adding that Homeland Security also wasn’t a party to the lawsuit challenging the DOJ’s voter roll effort.

The Justice Department’s lawsuit against California offers a broad overview, but few specifics, of how Homeland Security compiled its list of suspected noncitizens. It says that Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, compares “information about voter rolls” with “its internal data” to identify possible noncitizens. Additional investigative steps, not described, are used to assign a confidence level — low, medium or high — to each match.

ICE then connects high confidence matches with an “alien number” and those individuals are compared against internal records regarding naturalization and parental citizenship. Records from the State Department and Social Security Administration are also reviewed, the DOJ says in its lawsuit.

Individuals that ICE still believes to be noncitizens are then sent to Homeland Security Investigations, a sub-agency of ICE, according to the Justice Department. HSI conducts an “analytical data enrichment process” before sending data to HSI criminal investigators in the field.

In a statement Friday, DHS said it uses multiple data sources, from both government and commercial third-party sources, to supplement public information.

Mullin slams ‘unlawful voting’ 

In a Thursday statement, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin called the number of alleged noncitizens registered to vote in California “completely unacceptable.” He said even one noncitizen vote cancels out the ballot of a U.S. citizen and undermines elections.

“DHS is committed to identifying unlawful voting, protecting the integrity of federal elections, and ensuring that only eligible American citizens elect America’s leaders,” Mullin said.

Democrats and voting rights experts have questioned the Justice Department’s decision to file the lawsuit with the election underway. The DOJ previously lost a lawsuit seeking to force California to turn over its unredacted voter roll — one of 23 similar lawsuits over state voter data that the Trump administration has lost.

The Trump administration’s efforts to identify large numbers of noncitizen voters have, up to this point, also fallen short of its own standards. Over the summer, the federal government claimed that California had upwards of 190,000 noncitizens on its voter roll. 

By contrast, Thursday’s lawsuit alleges only roughly 20,000 noncitizen voters — about 0.08% of the nearly 23.2 million registered voters in California.

DHS said Friday that 190,000 remains the number of potential noncitizen voters but that 20,000 represents a subset who have gone through a manual verification process so far.

“Every count, recount, hand count, lawsuit, and audit has found that there’s no widespread voter fraud in the U.S.,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, wrote on social media. “The Trump Admin’s last-minute demands are meritless, and we look forward to making our case in court.”

The U.S. Department of Justice is demanding California not count ballots from voters it says are suspected noncitizens, a move by the Trump administration to apply last-minute pressure as voting begins in the midterm elections.

The Justice Department on Tuesday gave California election officials 48 hours to remove voters on a list contained on a thumb drive provided to Los Angeles County, the most populous county in the country. The DOJ also wants election officials to withhold mail ballots from these voters. 

The demand appeared in letters to the California Secretary of State’s Office and the Los Angeles Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk. The DOJ gave the state until noon Eastern on Thursday to comply, threatening legal action if that deadline is not met.

The letters set the stage for a courtroom confrontation between the Trump administration and the largest state in the country ahead of Election Day. The Justice Department’s demand marks an extraordinary effort to dictate to state officials who will be allowed to cast a ballot even as voting is underway.

“The United States hopes that you share our commitment to ensure that only American citizens participate in our federal elections. Allowing noncitizens to vote cancels citizen votes,” R. Trent McCotter, an acting deputy U.S. attorney general, wrote in a letter to California Democratic Secretary of State Shirley Weber.

Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean C. Logan said in a statement that his office received the thumb drive, along with a handwritten note containing a password. Workers in the office did not seek to open the thumb drive, which would have violated data security protocols, he said.

He said he would work with Weber and the state attorney general to determine next steps.

“Maintaining accurate voter registration records is a fundamental responsibility of our office,” he added. “Federal and state laws are clear on how voter eligibility is established – and any action to remove a voter from eligibility must be based on verifiable information, not assertions of unconfirmed data matching.”

In a statement late Wednesday, Weber said the DOJ’s actions “only serve to cause chaos and fuel public distrust in our elections.”

Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom’s press account on social media called the Trump administration’s actions “completely unacceptable and inappropriate.” 

Questions linger

It’s not clear whether the Justice Department plans to send letters to additional states. The Justice Department provided copies of the letters to States Newsroom on Wednesday but didn’t answer a question about whether other states would receive them.

In the letters, McCotter asked California election officials to segregate the mail ballots of the suspected noncitizens until their citizenship status is determined. The individuals shouldn’t be sent mail ballots if they haven’t already been sent one, McCotter added, and any returned ballots should not be tabulated until citizenship can be determined.

McCotter did not say how many individuals are on the DOJ’s list or how the federal government came to believe they aren’t citizens. He wrote that the Justice Department would “seek emergency relief” if California didn’t comply. 

Voter roll changes prohibited during election season

Federal law prohibits most states from conducting systematic purges of voters less than 90 days before an election. If the Justice Department sues to force California to remove the suspected noncitizen voters, a judge would likely grapple with whether the DOJ-provided list represents the kind of mass removal that’s not currently allowed.

Voting rights groups and Democratic election officials, as well as some Republicans, have warned that Trump may try to interfere in the midterm elections. If Democrats retake control of the U.S. House or Senate, the final two years of the president’s term could be mired in investigations and legislative gridlock.

Federal courts have uniformly blocked the department’s efforts to force states to turn over their voter rolls, including sensitive personal information such as driver’s license and Social Security numbers. And a federal judge last week ruled against the DOJ’s use of voter data even from states that voluntarily provided the information.

The U.S. Supreme Court also blocked Trump’s attempt to restrict voting by mail through the U.S. Postal Service, leaving the president with few remaining avenues to assert authority over elections, which are administered by the states under the U.S. Constitution.

“Donald Trump’s attempt to invalidate votes in California is an attack on every voter across the country. The president is abusing his position in a callous attempt to take away the power of everyday people, but here in California we’re not going to let him,” Jonathan Paik, a leader with Can’t Stop California, a nonpartisan voter mobilization group, said in a statement.

Trump has long complained about California elections, especially the speed of ballot counting in the state. California’s long count is a well-known feature of its elections, with election officials given about a month to process and tally all ballots and doesn’t indicate fraud.

The Justice Department has followed Trump’s lead in scrutinizing California’s elections. The top federal prosecutor in Los Angeles has linked suspicions about California’s elections to the state’s refusal to turn over its unredacted voter roll.

Three weeks before Election Day, the Trump administration’s sprawling project to send sensitive personal information on millions of voters to the Department of Homeland Security has been declared illegal by a federal judge.

The blistering court decision comes after the Department of Justice pressured or sued states for their voters’ information and then, according to court records and federal documents, turned over the data it obtained to Homeland Security Investigations — a sub-agency of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE.

The decision, issued late last week, marks the latest rebuke of the Trump administration during more than a year of legal confrontations with dozens of states and voting rights groups over President Donald Trump’s efforts to assert authority over voting ahead of the midterm elections. 

If Republicans lose control of one or both chambers of Congress, Trump’s final two years in office could be consumed by Democratic-led investigations into his administration and opposition to his legislative agenda.

The Justice Department’s legal arguments suggested that “every American citizen who registers to vote is the subject of a voter fraud investigation underway in the (Justice Department’s) Civil Rights Division simply because they registered to vote,” wrote Judge Sparkle Sooknanan of District of Columbia District Court, an appointee of President Joe Biden.

“Behind all the window dressing, the challenged policy represents the federal government’s attempt to decide who gets to vote,” Sooknanan wrote. “But Congress has left that authority where our Constitution has always placed it: with the states.”

SAVE program

The Justice Department has already lost at least 23 district court lawsuits seeking to force states to provide voter data. The U.S. Supreme Court also blocked Trump’s plans to use the U.S. Postal Service to restrict voting by mail. 

While the Supreme Court cleared states to use a supercharged Homeland Security computer program called SAVE to seek out noncitizen voters, its effects on the midterms have been minimal because most states are restricted by federal law from conducting mass purges of registered voters so close to an election.

SAVE’s opponents point to multiple examples of the program falsely flagging Americans as possible noncitizens. Sooknanan previously ruled against SAVE’s use in a June decision, which the Supreme Court overturned in September when it allowed states to access the program.

Asked about Sooknanan’s latest decision, Justice Department spokesperson Kiersten Pels in an email to States Newsroom said only that the department was “reviewing the ruling.”

More noncitizen voting charges

In recent weeks, the Justice Department has filed a series of cases alleging noncitizen voting, which studies have consistently shown rarely occurs. The DOJ on Monday announced voter fraud charges against 16 individuals, including 13 noncitizens. In September, prosecutors secured grand jury indictments against 10 noncitizens in Minnesota.

“The law is clear, only American citizens may vote in American elections, and enforcing this law is fundamental to our democracy. That should not be a partisan concept,” U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche said at a late September news conference.

Sooknanan’s ruling came in a lawsuit filed in April by the voting rights group Common Cause and a group of voters. While both Republican and Democratic-led states had fought the Justice Department individually, the new lawsuit targeted the entire voter roll collection project — a choice aimed at protecting voters living in states that had shared or might share their data with the Trump administration voluntarily.

“This is a victory for voters and yet another loss for the Department of Justice. It’s time the Trump administration stop these desperate attempts to seize voters’ private data and take control of our elections,” Virginia Kase Solomón, Common Cause president and CEO, said in a statement.

16 states provided voter rolls

Despite the courtroom losses, the Trump administration still obtained records on tens of millions of voters. At least 16 states voluntarily provided the Justice Department with their voter rolls, according to the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, which has tracked the DOJ’s actions.

Those states include Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Wyoming.

Court filings and internal government documents show the Trump administration put the information to use. Last week, the watchdog group Democracy Forward released internal HSI reports showing the agency received nearly 51 million Justice Department records as part of its “election integrity” investigations.

The HSI reports didn’t describe the nature of the Justice Department records. But Sooknanan wrote the DOJ had given records on millions of voters to ICE. Sooknanan ruled the transfers violated the Privacy Act, a federal law that restricts how federal agencies collect and share information on individuals.

Sooknanan referenced a letter from the acting director of ICE to the Justice Department asking for the state voter lists as part of an initiative to combat voter fraud. In the March 6 letter, Todd Lyons asked for the data “in order for HSI to conduct appropriate investigation of potential violations of federal election law.”

DOJ attorney Eric Neff replied to Lyons on March 12 to confirm the data sharing. He wrote that Homeland Security and the Justice Department would “take reasonable efforts to limit impacts to the privacy and civil liberties of United States citizens.”

However, Sooknanan found that the DOJ sought to investigate every registered voter without a specific reason to believe they committed voter fraud or that their states violated federal election laws. She warned that the department cannot evade the free speech protections within the Privacy Act by launching a “dragnet” investigation of the whole country.

‘Not only ill-conceived, but illegal’

Justin Levitt, who served as senior policy adviser for democracy and voting rights in the Biden White House and is now a law professor at Loyola Marymount University, said not much in Sooknanan’s decision will directly affect the 2026 elections. 

Writing in Election Law Blog, Levitt noted that most states never turned over their voter files to the Justice Department, and of the states that did, only a few appeared to have pledged to act on whatever “unreliable garbage” data the DOJ sent back.

“But even without a direct impact on anything happening in the next month, this is an important declaration that the whole program was not only ill-conceived, but illegal,” Levitt wrote.

The Trump administration may still be allowed to compile lists of voting-age citizens in each state as part of a sweeping executive order on voting by mail signed by Trump in March. But court-mandated notice requirements mean the lists won’t be available before the midterms.

The so-called state citizenship lists are the only major element of the executive order not currently blocked by the courts. The order directs Homeland Security to work with the Social Security Administration to develop the lists and provide them to state officials, though it doesn’t require states to do anything with the information.

Maryland judge to consider citizenship lists

U.S. District Court Judge Paula Xinis, an appointee of President Barack Obama in Maryland District Court, is set to decide what the Supreme Court’s Sept. 25 decision allowing the use of SAVE means for the fate of the citizenship lists. 

The Electronic Privacy Information Center, or EPIC, a public interest research organization, sued the Trump administration over the lists in August. While Xinis hasn’t ruled in the lawsuit, she has ordered the DOJ to provide at least 30 days notice of any effort to move forward with the initiative or provide the lists to states.

With less than a month before Election Day, the notice requirement effectively means the lists won’t be available before the midterm elections, even if they are upheld in court. Still, the eventual outcome holds potential consequences for future elections if states use the information to purge registered voters.

EPIC and the Justice Department have submitted dueling briefs to Xinis on what the SAVE decision means for the citizenship lists.

Lawyers for EPIC argue that key differences exist between the state citizenship lists and the SAVE system. While the SAVE system discloses information on requested individuals, they noted, the executive order mandates providing information on all U.S. citizens by state.

“Critically, states or localities must initiate a request for verification of specified individuals’ citizenship status in order to utilize” SAVE, the attorneys wrote.

Lawyers for the Justice Department called the argument a “red herring.” In their brief, they argue that state officials would have to log into a federal portal to download the citizenship data.

“That affirmative conduct would be materially similar to sending a request to DHS: either way, the State would itself initiate the transfer of data,” the DOJ brief says.

Xinis could rule at any time.

A federal grand jury indicted 10 noncitizens for unlawfully voting in Minnesota, U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche said Wednesday, highlighting the administration’s effort to keep election security a top issue, in line with President Donald Trump’s longstanding unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud.

The indictments, which include nine counts of unlawful voting and nine counts of falsely claiming citizenship to register to vote, bring the number of noncitizens charged nationwide with election-related crimes since Trump re-took office last year to 90. The census reports 154 million people voted in the 2024 election.

Blanche said at a news conference at Justice Department headquarters in Washington, D.C., that the indictments show how seriously the administration takes election security.

“We have talked repeatedly about the importance of election integrity, and we’re certainly not going to stop talking about that now,” he said. “Voter fraud erodes the public’s trust in our electoral system, and it’s vital to our democratic process that we do everything that we can to restore that trust.”

Blanche’s participation in a press conference, alongside fellow Cabinet member Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, underlined the administration’s continuing focus on noncitizen voting, though numerous studies have shown it to be rare. Trump has for years amplified debunked conspiracy theories centered on election fraud.

Mullin made that connection explicit Wednesday, saying the indictments confirmed Trump’s accusations.

“The president said it for a long time, and the Democrats were sitting there denying it and saying, ‘There’s no fraud. That wasn’t taking place. There’s no fraud. There’s nothing, nothing here. Don’t look over here,’” he said. “We’re realizing there’s actually a lot. And we believe that some of these states probably even knew about it, chose not to look into it. Well, we are.”

But the allegations of illegal voting in Minnesota in the 2022 and 2024 general elections and 2026 primaries made virtually no difference to election results. 

The seven alleged illegal votes in the 2024 presidential election, for example, would account for only .0002% of votes cast in that election in Minnesota.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge told the Trump administration Friday a case against the Department of Justice’s $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund is “still alive and kicking.”

The administration sought to dismiss the case brought against President Donald Trump’s negotiated settlement terms to drop his $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service for a years-old grievance over leaked tax returns. 

The settlement, brokered by the DOJ and Department of Treasury and met by heated opposition even from Republicans, established a massive taxpayer-funded settlement fund to pay “victims of lawfare.” It also included retroactive relief from tax audits and enforcement for Trump, his sons Don Jr. and Eric, and the Trump Organization.

Critics of the fund asserted the likelihood that violent participants who assaulted police during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol could reap a reward from the pot of money.

The administration maintains the fund never became operational and that the case is moot, though it refused to provide a sworn statement requested by the court saying as much.  Attorney General Todd Blanche testified at his July 15 confirmation hearing that the fund is “dead” and “never started.”

30 days to produce documents

On Friday, Judge Leonie Brinkema at the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Virginia overruled the government’s objection to producing evidence and gave DOJ 30 days to produce documents potentially revealing who structured the deal. 

The “real concern,” she said is “this concept of taxpayer money being used to promote political viewpoints.”

“I think the fund now is gone, but is there a functional equivalent?” she asked, noting violators of federal laws that the administration opposes, like protections for abortion clinic clients, could be paid from a DOJ judgment fund.

Plaintiffs, including individuals and interest groups, sued the DOJ, Blanche and Treasury officials, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and IRS CEO Frank Bisignano.

Among the numerous plaintiffs are Andrew Floyd, a former assistant U.S. attorney who alleges he was fired for prosecuting Jan. 6 defendants, and the nonprofit National Abortion Federation, which represents abortion providers and advocates for abortion access.

Pooja Boisture, counsel for the plaintiffs, argued Friday the fund is “discriminatory.”

“This fund was designed to reward and give credence to election deniers and violators of the FACE Act,” she said, referring to the 1994 law that penalizes violence or threats from protesters against those entering to abortion clinics.

In response to a request for comment on Friday’s hearing, a DOJ spokesperson said, “The Department is confident that the court lacks jurisdiction over this lawsuit against the (anti-weaponization fund), which never started and isn’t moving forward.”

Constitutional question

The plaintiffs also allege the tax immunity arrangement for Trump, his sons and private conglomerate amounts to an unfair gain or advantage for the president, therefore violating the Constitution’s emoluments clause.

The National Treasury Employees Union is also party to the suit and brought the claim of an emoluments violation, as well as allegations of injury to tax auditors who may have been told to stop any audits of Trump.

“These members have no good options: If they comply with a request to terminate audits, they violate their oath of office; and if they refuse to comply, they will likely face retaliation for insubordination,” the union argued in a court filing.

The plaintiffs allege the president has ongoing audits that will be terminated under the immunity deal. 

Lisa Newman, attorney for the legal advocacy group Democracy Forward that is representing the plaintiffs, also told Brinkema, “We do plead that the president was participating in negotiation of the settlement.”

Newman referred to public reporting by The New York Times on May 19 that a loss in an IRS audit of Trump’s previous tax returns could cost him roughly $100 million.

Andrew Block, senior counsel for the Justice Department, told Brinkema he’s “not aware there are or (are) not” audits of the president’s tax returns from that period of time.

“It is speculation to say … that there was an improper request,” he said.

Brinkema shot back that Trump’s underlying $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS is “unique.”

“The plaintiff is absolutely controlling the defendants” who are at risk of being fired by the president on “a whim,” she said.

Settlement ‘castrated’ by judge

Brinkema said the Florida federal judge in Trump’s IRS case “castrated” the settlement in a July 13 order, adding the president’s underlying lawsuit against the nation’s tax enforcement agency is “extraordinarily relevant” to the lawsuit before her.

Judge Kathleen Williams for the  U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, where Trump filed his lawsuit, wrote in a 56-page order that “No sitting President has ever sued federal agencies completely subject to his control for monetary benefits, or any benefits that inure to him, his family, and associates.” 

“The failure of any attorney in this case to address, on this docket, the relationship of this Article II proscription with the benefits conferred by the ‘settlement’ is a glaring omission that speaks to the control of the Lead Plaintiff,” Williams wrote.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent Christian Castro, who is accused of shooting Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis through the closed door of a Minneapolis home in January, turned himself in to federal authorities on Thursday, the Associated Press and other outlets reported. 

Castro was indicted by a federal grand jury this week on six charges of making false statements related to the shooting, according to the indictment which was unsealed on Friday. 

Matthew Evans, the assistant U.S. attorney in Minnesota in charge of the case, was pursuing hefty civil rights charges against Castro, but was instructed by Justice Department officials in Washington, D.C. to downgrade the charges.

Evans was fired, CBS News reported Thursday, citing four unnamed sources familiar with the matter.

By charging Castro only with making false statements, the DOJ will not have to litigate whether the shooting was justified.

The Jan. 14 shooting followed a car chase between Castro and Alfredo Aljorna, who lived in the same duplex as Sosa-Celis. The chase ended at the men’s duplex, as Aljorna exited his car and tried to get inside the house. Aljorna slipped, and Castro jumped on top of him. 

Sosa-Celis dropped the shovel he was holding to help Aljorna up, and both men ran inside. Castro’s shot passed through the door and hit Sosa-Celis in the leg before coming to a stop in the wall of a child’s bedroom. 

Castro accused Sosa-Celis and Aljorna of assaulting him with a broom and a snow shovel before Castro opened fire, leading to assault charges against the two men that were dropped after surveillance footage proved Castro’s statements false.

The six charges in the indictment stem from six specific alleged lies Castro told FBI investigators after the shooting. Four of the counts are related to Castro accusing Sosa-Celis, Aljorna and a nonexistent third man of hitting him with a broom or shovel. One count is for Castro stating that a physical altercation between the three men lasted three minutes, and another count is over Castro’s statement that he was on the ground when he fired his gun. 

According to surveillance footage no one hit Castro with a broom or shovel. The physical altercation between them lasted 11 seconds, not three minutes. There was no other man present besides Castro, Aljorna and Sosa-Celis, and Castro was standing when he fired at the front door of the house. 

Castro worked for the U.S. Border Patrol for eight years before joining ICE in September, according to the indictment. 

Castro is also charged in Minnesota with four counts of second-degree assault and one count of falsely reporting a crime. He was arrested in May by Texas Rangers, a state law enforcement agency, and held in a Texas county jail for 90 days. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott blocked Castro’s extradition to Minnesota, prompting a lawsuit from Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, which failed to stop Castro’s release from jail last week. 

Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty released a statement Thursday saying Castro is expected to appear first in a federal court in Texas, and a date will be set for his appearance in a Minnesota federal court. 

“Despite Gov. Abbott’s best efforts to shield Mr. Castro, we will see him soon,” Moriarty said.