SAVE Voter-Citizenship Database: Opposition Briefed at SCOTUS as Ruling Looms

SAVE Voter-Citizenship Database: Opposition Briefed at SCOTUS as Ruling Looms

UPDATE (Sept. 25, 2026): The Supreme Court granted the administration's stay — 6-3 — reviving the modified SAVE database 39 days before the election¹. The unsigned majority opinion (26A308) paused Judge Sparkle Sooknanan's June 22 order (D.D.C.) that had barred use of the overhauled SAVE system on the ground that it violated federal privacy laws, the Social Security Act, and the APA. The majority held the lower court's order "inhibits the Federal Government's efforts to assist state and local agencies in the proper administration of the midterm elections," reasoned that a 1996 immigration law means "Congress … separately and expressly authorized DHS to request and receive information relating to citizenship and immigration status from other agencies, including SSA²," and found the government would suffer permanent harm otherwise because "the Federal Government has an obligation to respond to requests from state and local election officials seeking to verify the citizenship of voters³" (SCOTUSblog, Amy Howe, Sept. 25, 2026).

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, joined by Sotomayor and Kagan, calling the decision a "questionable interim ruling[] about two statutory provisions" the Court "has never before interpreted," and arguing:

"the harm caused by burdening or disenfranchising even a few lawful voters outweighs the nonexistent harm that the Government experiences when it is prevented from taking an action that it likely lacks the authority to take." — Jackson, J., dissenting, quoted by SCOTUSblog

Notably, the majority conceded the National Voter Registration Act's 90-day pre-election moratorium "limits the potential impact of staying" Sooknanan's order — states can still conduct only "individualized inquiries" during this period. The Court also found the challengers (League of Women Voters, EPIC) do have standing, via a Louisiana member who would need to supply extra citizenship proof because SSA records don't show her naturalization.

Where this leaves the fight: This is the administration's first major SCOTUS emergency win on election administration this cycle — a sharp contrast with the Sept. 14 7-2 denial on the USPS mail-ballot rule (Supreme Court Refuses to Reinstate Trump's USPS Mail-Ballot Restrictions, 7-2 — Trump Attacks His Own Appointees) and the third block of the Missouri map (Missouri's Trump-Backed Map: Dead for 2026 After Third SCOTUS Block — the Fight Is Over, But a Referendum on the Map Is Now on the Ballot). The merits case continues in the D.C. Circuit, where briefing had been postponed pending the SCOTUS application. Meanwhile, the whistleblower fight over DHS's related "Unlawful Voter Initiative" searches — including DOJ's court notice that it "reactivated" the DHS-SSA data link while this stay application was pending — is tracked in DHS 'Unlawful Voter Initiative': Five Weeks Out, the Hunt Has Found Almost Nothing and The 'State Citizenship Lists' Head for a Ruling: Judge Xinis Fully Briefed in EPIC's Challenge — Decision Expected Before the Midterms.

Prior state of play (Sept. 8–21): Solicitor General D. John Sauer applied Sept. 8 to stay Sooknanan's order, calling it "an indefensible order that threatens the integrity of upcoming elections" and challenging the challengers' standing; the groups opposed on Sept. 15, writing that "the government has recklessly created an error-laden master citizenship database that endangers millions of Americans' privacy and voting rights" (SCOTUSblog). Sooknanan had written that "the federal government has knowingly trampled on the privacy rights of American citizens in a manner that threatens the sacred right to vote," and that "states have partnered with the federal government to access the database and are actively removing United States citizens from voter rolls based on inaccurate information." The D.C. Circuit had refused a stay on Sept. 4 by a divided panel.