The Supreme Court on Monday rejected the Trump administration’s emergency bid to sequester mail ballots cast by California voters whom the federal government said it had “identified as likely noncitizens.” The quick denial blocked the administration from obtaining the intervention it requested from the justices.

The court issued an unexplained order, and no justice publicly noted a dissent. While that silence is not unusual in emergency litigation, the speed and handling of this request stood out.

The full court acted without first calling for a response from the opposing party. That made the rejection especially notable as the administration sought immediate Supreme Court involvement in California’s ballot counting process.

The Department of Justice turned to the justices after a divided federal appellate panel refused to order California to separate more than 20,000 ballots. The federal government also wanted the state to create a process for verifying those voters’ citizenship before counting their ballots.

The two appellate judges in the majority were appointed by Presidents Donald Trump and Joe Biden. They found that California already had a process for verifying voter eligibility.

Those judges also said the DOJ was attempting to subvert the constitutional system governing how elections are conducted. Their ruling rejected the administration’s demand for a separate procedure covering the disputed ballots.

The panel majority raised concerns that the government’s requested intervention could disenfranchise lawful voters. It also questioned the reliability of the federal government’s data concerning the voters at issue.

The third appellate judge, who dissented, was also appointed by Trump. He characterized the DOJ’s request as “modest” relief that “would not cancel any vote but would allow time to verify the eligibility of suspected noncitizens.”

In its Monday application to the Supreme Court, the DOJ leaned heavily on that dissent from Judge Patrick Bumatay. He has been floated as a possible Supreme Court choice if Trump gets another appointment during his second term.

Whether Trump receives that opportunity depends in part on the Senate’s composition after the Election Day results are tallied. The source identified that political question while describing the judge whose dissent became central to the DOJ’s application.

The DOJ quoted Bumatay while arguing that segregating the ballots did not threaten to disenfranchise voters. According to the passage it highlighted, segregation “just gives election officials a chance to determine whether ballots are legal.”

The appellate majority saw the proposed intervention differently. It emphasized California’s existing verification process, challenged the dependability of the government’s information and warned about the possibility that lawful voters could lose their voices.

The dispute therefore reached the Supreme Court with the appellate judges split over both the requested remedy and its potential consequences. The majority focused on the constitutional election system and voter disenfranchisement, while the dissent emphasized additional time for eligibility checks.

More than 20,000 ballots were covered by the federal government’s request. The administration described the affected voters as likely noncitizens, but the appellate majority questioned the reliability of the data behind that claim.

The Supreme Court’s order did not explain why the justices denied the DOJ’s application. It also gave no public indication that any member of the court wanted to grant the administration’s request.

The immediate result was that California received no Supreme Court order requiring it to segregate the ballots or establish the new verification process sought by the DOJ. The administration’s aggressive emergency appeal had met a swift and unanimous public rejection, with no noted dissent.