World

U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Trump’s Request on California Votes

Donald Trump's administration sought to halt the counting of 20,000 ballots in California, but the Supreme Court denied the request on the eve of the elections.

3 November 2026Tagblick Newsdesk

AI-generatedWritten by an AI system, editorially responsible — how we work

Archive photo: U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Trump’s Request on California Votes — Archive photoPhoto: Unknown author · Wikimedia Commons · Public domain

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a request from President Donald Trump’s administration to prevent California from counting 20,000 mail-in ballots from registered voters. The request was filed on Monday, November 2, one day before the crucial midterm elections for both major parties in the country.

The administration argued that these ballots might have been sent by individuals who allegedly were not American citizens. The legal dispute over these votes intensified as the election date approached, prompting the Department of Justice to seek the Court's intervention.

According to reports from various sources, Trump’s attempt to block the counting of these ballots was unsuccessful, as courts argued that the presented requests were unconstitutional, asserting that the regulation of elections is a state competence.

In California, authorities maintain that the electoral processes are under control and that the list from the Department of Justice could be flawed. Meanwhile, opposition to Trump's attempts continues to be a topic of debate among legal experts.

This case reached the court at a critical moment, encompassing the counting of votes that could affect thousands of voters. Therefore, the Supreme Court’s rejection of the request had significant relevance as the state prepared to hold its elections.

The Supreme Court's decision not only marks a setback for the Trump administration but also highlights the issue of state autonomy regarding election management, which remains a significantly controversial area in the United States.

This item was written by an AI system on the basis of the headlines and short teasers of the independently operating newsrooms named below. We disclose this under Art. 50(4), second subparagraph, of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (AI Act). Before publication we check origin and verifiability — anything that appears in only one place is not published — as well as language, substance and legally sensitive content. No separate substantive review of each individual item by a natural person takes place; we therefore do not rely on the exemption in Art. 50(4), second subparagraph, of the AI Act. Editorial responsibility for this publication rests with the person named in the imprint (§ 18 Abs. 2 MStV). Please report errors to [email protected] — we will correct or remove the item. Full reports are available from the sources listed.