DOJ gave California a voter list, a 48-hour deadline — and a threat of court action

A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that a provision of California's "No Vigilantes Act" violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The decision came from the Ninth Circuit, with Judge Mark Bennett writing the majority opinion, joined by Judges Jacqueline Nguyen and Daniel Collins. The provision in question, Section 10 of the act, mandates that non-uniformed federal law enforcement officers operating in California visibly display identification while carrying out their duties. Those who fail to comply could face criminal prosecution by the state. The court reiterated its previous ruling granting the United States' motion for an injunction pending appeal. It concluded that Section 10 of the No Vigilantes Act attempts to directly regulate the operations of the federal government, which is prohibited under the Supremacy Clause. The judges emphasized that states cannot directly regulate the federal government's operations or property without explicit authorization from Congress. According to the court, the Supremacy Clause ensures that the federal government operates free from interference by states. This principle extends to situations where state laws might otherwise apply equally to both federal and state actions. The court cited historical precedent, noting that even the most fundamental state laws, such as those related to murder, cannot override the conduct of federal marshals acting under federal law. The court rejected the idea of a de minimis exception to the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity, stating that any state law that directly regulates the conduct of the federal government is invalid, regardless of how minimal the regulation might seem. Section 10 of the No Vigilantes Act was deemed to directly regulate the conduct of federal officers by imposing additional requirements beyond those set by the federal government itself. Separately, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has issued a directive to California officials, demanding that they investigate a list of individuals identified as likely noncitizens who received mail-in ballots for the upcoming election. Acting Deputy Attorney General R. Trent McCotter sent letters to Los Angeles County officials and the California Secretary of State, providing the list via a password-protected thumb drive and setting a 48-hour deadline for reviewing the names and segregating ballots from those whose citizenship status could not be confirmed. McCotter warned that failure to comply with these instructions could result in the DOJ seeking emergency court relief. The DOJ stated that it is crucial to prevent noncitizens from voting in federal elections, citing existing federal statutes that prohibit such activity. However, California officials expressed concerns over the legitimacy of the list and the timing of the request, which comes just days before Election Day. California Secretary of State Shirley Weber criticized the DOJ's approach, arguing that the request lacks proper justification and legal authority. She noted that her office had not received the list directly and questioned the legality of the DOJ's attempt to access state voter data. Similarly, LA County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean Logan refused to access the contents of the thumb drive, citing data privacy and security concerns. Experts have raised doubts about the accuracy of the DOJ's claims regarding noncitizen voting. Previous allegations by the Department of Homeland Security about large numbers of ineligible voters have been revised significantly after scrutiny. For example, claims of 190,000 ineligible voters in California were later reduced to a much smaller number. Similar discrepancies have been observed in other states, suggesting that the initial figures may have been inflated. Despite these challenges, the DOJ continues to assert that ensuring the integrity of the electoral process is paramount. The situation highlights the tension between federal and state authorities over issues of election administration and voter eligibility. As the deadline approaches, the response from California officials will be critical in determining whether the DOJ's demands will be met or challenged in court.