Tuesday, November 3, 2026Memphis · 73°/62°, TennesseeEst. 2026
Markets · loading
Law & Courts
Law
CNBC
UPDATESupreme Court rejects DOJ bid to set aside 20,000 California ballots
One-line order, with no noted dissents, ends the Justice Department's emergency request on the eve of Election Day
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday evening denied a Justice Department emergency application that sought to make California set aside mail ballots from about 20,000 voters the government says are probably not citizens. The unsigned one-sentence order gave no reasons and noted no dissents. It came hours after Solicitor General D. John Sauer filed. Justice Elena Kagan referred the request to the full court. The application followed a 2-1 Ninth Circuit ruling on Friday that left in place U.S. District Judge David Carter's refusal to order the ballots segregated. California says the federal list contains errors. California Attorney General Rob Bonta said the court acted without asking the state to respond, which he called rare. Acting Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter said the department will keep pursuing other legal avenues. The underlying case continues in the Central District of California.
Why it mattersThe ruling removes the most direct federal court route for contesting the disputed ballots before Tuesday's midterm count and extends a run of Trump administration losses on election-related emergency requests.
Divided panel calls the department's pre-election steps core executive functions; one judge dissents
SAN FRANCISCO — A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit on Monday night stayed, pending appeal, a federal injunction that had barred the Justice Department from pressuring state election officials over ballots from alleged noncitizens. U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson had ruled last week that the department's demands, and its repeated threats to prosecute officials who refused, likely violated the Voting Rights Act's ban on intimidating or coercing people who help others vote. Her order was set to run through Nov. 16. It arose from a suit by labor unions and civil rights groups. The 2-1 majority said the government's actions were executive functions that did not disturb how states run their elections. Judge Mary Helen Murguia dissented, saying the ruling cannot be squared with the court's refusal last week to order California to segregate 20,000 ballots. The appeal on the merits continues.
Why it mattersThe stay frees federal officials to press election administrators on noncitizen voting during the count, and the Ninth Circuit's rulings in the two related cases now point in different directions.
Tennessee Supreme Court upholds law capping Nashville Metro Council at 20 seats
Justices reject Metro's home-rule challenge to the 2023 statute and send the case back to the trial court
NASHVILLE — The Tennessee Supreme Court ruled Monday that the state may cap Nashville's Metro Council at 20 voting members, about half its current 40. The General Assembly passed the cap in 2023. A three-judge trial panel struck it down under two constitutional provisions, and the Court of Appeals reversed. The justices, who heard arguments in February, rejected Metro's Exemption Clause challenge and dismissed a separate challenge as moot after lawmakers amended the law. The council now has 35 district seats and five at-large seats. The opinion does not say which seats must go or when. It sends the case back to the trial court. Under the amended law, the council can make the cuts by a majority resolution regardless of charter provisions. Metro Legal says it will review its options. House Majority Leader William Lamberth, who led the bill, called the decision a win for small government.
Why it mattersThe decision confirms broad state power over how Tennessee's largest local government is structured and sets up redistricting and charter fights in Nashville.
Tennessee Supreme Court dismisses Nashville's airport board challenge after lawmakers rewrite law
Fight shifts to a 2026 statute that would reconstitute metropolitan and regional airport authority boards
NASHVILLE — The Tennessee Supreme Court has dismissed Metro Nashville's constitutional challenge to a 2023 law that required changes to airport authority boards in metropolitan governments with more than 500,000 residents. Metro had challenged the law under the state constitution's Local Legislation Clause. A three-judge trial panel found the measure unconstitutional and the Court of Appeals affirmed. After the justices heard arguments, however, the General Assembly amended the law to cover all metropolitan airport authorities regardless of population, along with some regional authorities. That change led to the dismissal. Metro Nashville and the Metropolitan Nashville Airport Authority are now separately challenging a 2026 law that would remove and reconstitute existing metropolitan and regional airport authority boards. Those suits are still pending.
Why it mattersThe ruling shows how the legislature can moot a pending constitutional challenge by rewriting a statute, and it leaves the newer airport-board law as the live dispute.
