A federal appeals court has refused to lift an order limiting Department of Homeland Security field operations and interviews involving actual or suspected U.S. citizens in nine states, leaving the restrictions in force until polls close on Election Day, November 3. On October 30, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected the government’s request to stay the injunction and the full court denied en banc review of that decision the same day. Seven judges, six appointed by President Donald Trump and one by a Republican predecessor, joined a dissent from leaving the lower court’s block on the DHS operations in place. The restrictions apply in California, Connecticut, Georgia, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin. A federal appeals court refused to lift an order limiting Department of Homeland Security operations in nine states through Election Day. It concluded that the government had not shown it would suffer irreparable harm if the program were paused through Election Day. The judges also faulted the timing of the enforcement “surge.” They noted the administration had more than a year and a half to investigate past fraud but escalated just as early voting began and said that delay left no practical way to prosecute anyone identified before the election. The en banc decision came late on Friday, hours after the panel ruled, when a majority of the court’s judges declined a colleague’s request to reconsider the stay denial. A majority of the non-recused active judges did not vote to rehear the order, according to the court’s October 30 filing. The judicial restrictions on DHS field operations apply across California, Connecticut, Georgia, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania; Washington and Wisconsin. Judge Eric Tung wrote a 33-page dissent joined by Judges Consuelo Callahan, Ryan Nelson, Daniel Collins, Daniel Bress, Patrick Bumatay and Lawrence VanDyke. He argued the district court had exceeded its role by restricting legitimate law enforcement. “By enjoining the government from even investigating illegal voting, the district court departed from its limited role,” Tung wrote. He said the lower court had confused investigation of suspected illegal voting with the voter intimidation that federal law prohibits. Private parties cannot sue to enforce Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act. Tung concluded that “the district court allowed abstract fear to substitute for concrete injury.” The dissent does not alter the injunction, because the vote fell short of a majority. DHS defended home visits by armed agents, characterizing door-to-door interviews as active election fraud probes. The DHS effort, known as the “Unlawful Voter Initiative,” drew scrutiny in September after a whistleblower alleged that agents had been ordered to misrepresent themselves as voters on state websites to obtain voter information. According to the court record, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) identifies potential illegal voters by comparing voter information from state and local governments and public sources against DHS and commercial databases. USCIS then manually reviews potential matches, with the stated goal of screening out U.S. citizens before referral to Homeland Security Investigations (HSI). If USCIS concludes someone likely voted illegally, it creates a record in TECS, a federal law-enforcement database. HSI then decides whether further investigation is warranted and one possible step is an interview with the suspected voter. Newsweek previously reported that armed HSI agents have visited homes to question people about citizenship and voting. DHS previously told Newsweek that federal agencies used government and commercial data to supplement voter-registration information, verify identities and eliminate false positives. A DHS spokesperson also previously defended the door-to-door work, saying HSI would “continue to investigate election fraud.” On October 31, DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin told Fox News the administration was “investigating over 300,000 cases.” The figure refers to cases under investigation, not confirmed instances of illegal voting. Judge Martínez-Olguín found the DHS program likely violated the Voting Rights Act by intimidating voters and voting assistants. On September 18, the California Nurses Association, National Nurses United, the City and County of San Francisco, Santa Clara County and the Voto Latino Foundation filed California Nurses Association v. District Court for the Northern District of California. The nursing organizations said their U.S.-citizen members feared being wrongly identified, investigated or detained and had curtailed election-related activities as a result. The plaintiffs argued the program could amount to voter intimidation prohibited by Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín found the program likely violated the Voting Rights Act by intimidating people who help or encourage others to vote. Her order bars election-related field interviews in the nine states when agents know, suspect or reasonably should suspect the person is a U.S. It also bars certain operations based entirely on records from DHS’s voter-matching process when the target is known or reasonably suspected to be a citizen. on Friday, October 23, so the government could seek an appeal. Beau Tremitiere, counsel at Protect Democracy, which represents the plaintiffs, told Newsweek that eligible voters in the affected states “can cast their ballots without fear of armed immigration agents showing up at their door.” He added: “The courts have been clear that these limits don’t impact legitimate law enforcement efforts.” Wendy Weiser, vice president for democracy at the Brennan Center for Justice, previously told Newsweek the approach was “highly irregular and inappropriate” and risked intimidating legitimate voters. Trump announced on Truth Social that anyone reporting voter fraud in past elections or the 2026 midterms would be paid $1 million upon the arrest and conviction of those responsible. He did not say where the money would come from and a White House spokesperson offered no further detail. District Judge Trina Thompson issued a temporary restraining order on October 30 barring DOJ and DHS from threatening election officials with prosecution for lawfully processing and counting ballots, or coercing them to remove voters or refuse ballots solely on allegations of ineligibility. The ruling is temporary and does not resolve the underlying lawsuit. In the California dispute over about 20,000 alleged noncitizen voters, the Ninth Circuit on October 26 dismissed the government’s appeal and the district court denied the government’s request for a restraining order on October 28. The administration maintains that heightened enforcement is necessary to protect election integrity. Critics counter that noncitizen voting is rare and that unreliable citizenship data can wrongly flag eligible voters. Democracy Docket reported that the administration will now likely turn to the U.S. Supreme Court. The injunction is set to expire automatically when polls close on November 3.