The US District Court for the Northern District of California on Friday ordered Trump administration officials to stop threatening investigation and prosecution against state and local election officials who do not comply with federal election demands.

The temporary restraining order, issued less than a week before the 2026 US midterm elections, lasts for 14 days. The case was brought by multiple labor and civil rights groups against the Department of Justice (DOJ), Attorney General Todd Blanche, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin.

The court criticized administration action in the lead up to the election, describing it as a “campaign to intimidate, threaten, and coerce state and local [election] officials and employees.” Judge Trina Thompson, a Biden-nominee, wrote:

When state and local officials perform the work of…administering the 2026 election in the manner required by their state and federal laws…they do not violate federal criminal law even if a particular ballot belongs to a registered voter alleged by [the Trump administration] to be ineligible to vote.

In October, the DOJ sent letters to California officials demanding they sequester election ballots that the department claimed came from non-citizens. When officials did not comply, the department sued them.

The DOJ soon after sent letters to local California election officials, “threaten[ing] criminal prosecution of any election worker who participated in processing a ballot cast by a voter whom Defendants allege is ineligible to vote.” Similar demands were sent to election officials in Washington state. DOJ prosecutors subsequently began multiple criminal investigations into state and local election officials and issued multiple grand jury subpoenas.

Courts issue temporary restraining orders, which are granted without notice to the adversely affected party, only when the moving party shows immediate harm will likely occur before the adverse party can object. Once established, the moving party must then show they will likely succeed on the merits of their claim, they will likely suffer irreparable harm without court intervention, and that the balance of equities and public interest weigh in their favor.

The court found, considering approaching elections and ongoing administrative actions, that plaintiffs have and would continue to suffer injury. Moreover, the court found plaintiffs would likely succeed in the case, as federal officials likely violated section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act, the Constitution, and numerous provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act.

Finally, the court noted how under the Constitution, states retain the “authority to provide a complete code for congressional elections, not only as to times and places, but in relation to notices, registration, supervision of voting, protection of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt practices, counting of votes, duties of inspectors and canvassers, and making and publication of election returns.” By directing states how to conduct elections, the court found the federal government overstepped its bounds.

While many aspects of administration actions related to the elections continue to be litigated, Friday’s ruling is the first to order a broad halt to overall administrative action.

Related to the order, on Friday the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected the DOJ’s request to force California election officials to set aside 20,000 ballots the department believed to come from ineligible voters.