Background
The United States sued California, Secretary of State Shirley Weber, and Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean Logan after federal agencies identified more than 20,000 registered voters as “likely” noncitizens. The federal government sought to prevent defendants from tabulating those individuals’ vote-by-mail ballots unless their citizenship could first be verified.
The government initially asked the district court to rule on its temporary-restraining-order application by November 3, 2026. After learning that Los Angeles County had already processed more than 331,000 ballots, however, it requested a ruling by noon on October 22—approximately 15 hours, including only three business hours, after making the request. When the district court did not rule by that deadline, the government treated the inaction as a constructive denial and appealed, even though the district court had scheduled an October 27 hearing and promised a prompt ruling afterward.
The Court’s Holding
In a per curiam order, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that the district court had not constructively denied injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). It distinguished A.A.R.P. v. Trump, where imminent deportations created an extreme risk of irreversible harm and threatened to defeat judicial review. Here, district-court proceedings remained underway, later appellate review would remain available, and the asserted urgency was partly attributable to the government’s own timing and changing deadlines.
The court granted Los Angeles County’s motion to dismiss, denied the government’s emergency motion for an injunction as moot, and denied pending intervention motions as moot. Judges Bennett and Sanchez filed separate concurrences. Judge Bennett stated that, even if appellate jurisdiction existed, he would deny emergency relief on the merits. Judge Bumatay dissented, concluding that the court should have acted to prevent California from commingling ballots associated with suspected noncitizens.
Key Takeaways
- A district court’s failure to rule within a litigant’s newly imposed 15-hour deadline does not by itself constitute an appealable constructive denial of injunctive relief.
- Constructive-denial jurisdiction depends on circumstances such as extreme urgency, severe irreparable consequences, and whether immediate review is necessary to preserve appellate jurisdiction.
- A party’s own delay and previously requested timetable may undermine its claim that district-court inaction created an immediately appealable emergency.
Why It Matters
The decision narrowly construes interlocutory appellate jurisdiction over unresolved emergency motions. Litigants cannot manufacture an appeal merely by accelerating a requested ruling deadline while the district court is actively considering the motion and meaningful review remains available.
The order did not resolve the government’s underlying claims concerning noncitizen voting, federal preemption, or California’s ballot procedures. Those merits remained before the district court, although the separate writings previewed substantial disagreement among the panel members.