A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals expressed significant skepticism Sunday toward the Trump administration's lawsuit seeking to force California to set aside mail-in ballots from approximately 20,000 individuals flagged as likely noncitizens.

During a rare weekend oral argument, judges pressed Justice Department attorney Matthew Donnelly on the suit's legal foundation. Trump-appointed Judge Mark Bennett noted that the request appeared inconsistent with the Elections Clause of the Constitution, which assigns states primary authority over election processes. "It seems to me that you want us to issue an injunction that is entirely inconsistent with the law that the California legislature has adopted pursuant to the Elections Clause," Bennett said.

The case stems from a lawsuit filed by the Justice Department on October 15 in federal district court in Los Angeles. Officials allege that federal data identified up to 20,000 "likely noncitizens" who received mail ballots for the November 3 midterms. The administration asked the court to bar California from counting those ballots until citizenship could be verified. California Attorney General Rob Bonta called the effort "at best, a reckless political stunt" in court filings.

The appeal reached the 9th Circuit after the district court, presided over by Judge David O. Carter, scheduled a hearing for Tuesday but did not immediately rule on an emergency request. The panel includes Judges Bennett, Patrick Bumatay, both Trump appointees, and Gabriel Sanchez, a Biden appointee. At least two judges voiced doubts about federal authority to override state election procedures in this manner.

California officials and election experts have questioned the reliability of the federal list, noting similar past claims elsewhere produced limited results. The state maintains that no evidence shows any of the listed individuals actually cast unlawful ballots. The midterms, which could determine control of Congress, are just over a week away.

The Trump administration has framed its actions as necessary to safeguard election integrity against potential noncitizen voting. The 9th Circuit has not yet issued a ruling following Sunday's arguments.