周一，第九巡回上诉法院的一个小组驳回了司法部要求立即下令要求加州隔离特朗普政府声称可能是非公民的个人的大约2万张邮寄选票的请求。
陪审团以2票赞成、1票反对的裁决称，上诉法院在诉讼的现阶段缺乏管辖权，将其退回到地区法院，该法院将于周二下午就DOJ的诉讼举行听证会。
唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）总统任命的巡回法官马克·贝内特（Mark Bennett）和乔·拜登（Joe Biden）总统任命的巡回法官加布里埃尔·桑切斯（Gabriel Sanchez）裁定反对政府的请求，特朗普任命的巡回法官帕特里克·布马泰（Patrick Bumatay）表示反对。
在他们的裁决中，贝内特和桑切斯写道：“美国声称的紧急状态，至少部分是自我构建的。这里的拖延至少部分归因于美国自己在提起诉讼、认识到现有的加利福尼亚州法律管辖选票的发放和处理、认识到加利福尼亚州有数百万登记选民并按照与该规模相一致的时间表处理选票以及向法院传达其期望的救济方面的拖延。”
本月早些时候，DOJ对加州提起诉讼指责该州未能审查特朗普政府声称为下周中期选举邮寄选票的所谓非公民名单。
在上周早些时候提交的法庭文件中，洛杉矶官员表示，对两万人名单上的200个名字进行的初步分析显示，有“很高比例”的人声称自己出生在美国，还有更多人根本没有投票历史。
官员们说，在这200个人中，近40%“表明他们出生在美国，这是公民身份的有力证据；71．2%的记录没有投票历史，”根据一份文件。
在罕见的周日紧急听证会上，司法部努力让上诉法院迅速对其诉讼做出裁决面临相当大的质疑从面板上。
贝内特反复质疑上诉法院是否有权在诉讼的这个阶段介入，并对诉讼本身表达了相当大的宪法关切。
“我不明白我们如何拥有管辖权，”Bennett对DOJ律师Matthew Donnelly说，此前他就政府决定寻求紧急上诉的时间表向他施压，而地方法官的听证会已经定于周二举行。
唐纳利声称，DOJ向上诉法院寻求救济的决定是在加利福尼亚州披露选举前已经处理的邮寄选票数量（数十万张）之后做出的。
贝内特最大的担忧似乎是诉讼的性质，它似乎直接违背了宪法的选举条款-该条款授权各州对其选举的方式拥有管辖权。
“立法机构如何能够就举行选举的方式制定法律，而国会却通过了一项刑事法规，尤其是当国会和加州立法机构都已将非公民投票定为非法时？”他问。
唐纳利一再指出DOJ的立场，即加州管理选举的方式——而不是对潜在的20，000名可能的非公民的硬盘驱动器采取行动——侵犯了联邦政府执行禁止非法移民投票的联邦法规的能力。
Appeals court declines to step in on Trump administration＇s California voting case
A 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel on Monday rejected a request from the Justice Department for an immediate order demanding California segregate roughly 20，000 mail-in ballots from individuals the Trump administration claims are likely non-citizens．
The 2-1 ruling from the panel said the appeals court lacks jurisdiction at this stage in the litigation， punting it back to district court， which has a hearing on the DOJ lawsuit set for Tuesday afternoon．
Circuit Judge Mark Bennett， who was appointed by President Donald Trump， and Circuit Judge Gabriel Sanchez， a President Joe Biden appointee， ruled against the administration＇s request， with Circuit Judge Patrick Bumatay， who was appointed by Trump， dissenting．
In their ruling， Bennett and Sanchez wrote： ＂The United States’s claimed emergency， at least in part， is a self-constructed one． At least part of the delay here is attributable to the United States’s own delay in filing suit， in realizing that existing California state law governs the issuance and processing of ballots， in recognizing that California has millions of registered voters and processes ballots on a schedule aligned with that scale， and in communicating to the court its desired relief．＂
Earlier this month， the DOJfiled suit against California， accusing the state of failing to review a list of alleged noncitizens that the Trump administration claimed were sent mail-in ballots for next week＇s midterm election．
In court papers filed earlier last week， Los Angeles officials said a preliminary analysis of 200 of the names on the 20，000-person list， included a ＂high percentage＂ of individuals who say they were born in the U．S． and many more who have no voting history at all．
Of those 200 individuals， officials said， nearly 40% ＂indicate that they were born in the United States， which is strong evidence of citizenship； and 71．2% of the records have no voting history，＂ according to a filing．
In a rare Sunday emergency hearing， the Justice Department＇s efforts to have the appeals court quickly rule on its lawsuitfaced considerable skepticismfrom the panel．
Bennett repeatedly questioned whether the appeals court had jurisdiction to step in at this stage in the litigation and expressed considerable constitutional concerns over the lawsuit itself．
＂I don＇t see how we have jurisdiction，＂ Bennett said to DOJ attorney Matthew Donnelly after pressing him over the timeline of the government＇s decision to seek emergency appeal when a hearing before the district judge is already set for Tuesday．
Donnelly claimed that the DOJ＇s decision to seek relief from the appeals court came after disclosures by California of the numbers of mail-in ballots already being processed in advance of the election -- which number in the hundreds of thousands．
Bennett＇s most significant concerns appeared to be the nature of the lawsuit and it appearing to directly contradict the Constitution＇s Elections Clause -- which mandates that states have jurisdictions over the manner their elections are run．
＂How can the legislature making laws with regard to the manner of holding elections be preempted by a criminal statute passed by the Congress， especially when both the Congress and the California Legislature have made it illegal for non-citizens to vote？＂he asked．
Donnelly repeatedly pointed to DOJ＇s position that the way California is administering its elections -- and not acting on the hard drive of potential 20，000 likely non-citizens -- infringes on the federal government＇s ability to enforce the federal statute barring voting by illegal immigrants．
