The confusion here stems from *how* the Ninth Circuit sits "en banc."
Last night's ruling (putting the district court order back into effect) came through a vote by *all 29* judges to "rehear" the case "en banc."
That vote triggered the creation of an en banc "panel," which has only 11 judges.
RE: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:pxbfdlnk5je4d5tyqhl3gsm2/post/3mzgm5clmq22o
And so only in the Ninth Circuit, you can "draw" an 11-judge en banc "panel" that's not representative of the full 29-judge court.
That's what's happened here, and the only way to override it is to go to #SCOTUS (unlikely) or seek "super" en banc rehearing—which the Ninth Circuit has never granted.
As for "what does this mean," it means that, for now, there's no court order in California barring Trump administration officials from "investigating" allegations of noncitizen voting (but also no order requiring California to do anything, either).
Not a *huge* deal, but very unhelpfully chaotic.
Soooo, the Trump administration *is* or *is not* prohibited from threatening election officials with prosecution while awaiting the 9th Circuit’s en banc ruling?!