AI-written summary synthesised from 7 independent reports, listed below. No human editor reviewed this. AI can misread or omit facts — read the originals.
ABSTRACT

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday that the Trump administration may resume using an expanded federal immigration database to check the citizenship status of registered voters, setting aside a lower-court order that had blocked it. The unsigned order in Washington, D.C., did not provide a vote count, according to The Hill, and was decided by the court's 6-3 conservative majority, according to Reuters (published by The Jerusalem Post). Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor dissented, with Jackson authoring the dissent. The decision concerns the Department of Homeland Security's Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements program, known as SAVE, and comes ahead of the November midterm elections. It puts on hold a June ruling by U.S. District Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan, who had found the revamped version of the program illegal, saying it violated Americans' privacy rights and could result in voters being wrongly removed from the rolls.

NPR News

Supreme Court allows Trump administration to resume expanded SAVE database for voter citizenship checks

Sep 25, 2026, 11:40 AM

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday that the Trump administration may resume using an expanded federal immigration database to check the citizenship status of registered voters, setting aside a lower-court order that had blocked it. The unsigned order in Washington, D.C., did not provide a vote count, according to The Hill, and was decided by the court's 6-3 conservative majority, according to Reuters (published by The Jerusalem Post). Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor dissented, with Jackson authoring the dissent. The decision concerns the Department of Homeland Security's Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements program, known as SAVE, and comes ahead of the November midterm elections. It puts on hold a June ruling by U.S. District Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan, who had found the revamped version of the program illegal, saying it violated Americans' privacy rights and could result in voters being wrongly removed from the rolls.

Context

SAVE is a 40-year-old federal data system created under an immigration law so that DHS could help federal, state and local agencies verify immigration status and prevent government benefits from going to non-citizens. The Trump administration overhauled it last year in response to a March 2025 executive order directing Homeland Security to give states access to systems for verifying the citizenship or immigration status of people registering to vote or already registered, according to the New York Post and the LA Times. The revamp linked SAVE with Social Security Administration records, allowed bulk queries, and let users search using names, birthdates and Social Security numbers rather than DHS-issued identification numbers, the New York Post reported. States' use of the program is voluntary.

In June, U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan, described by the LA Times and NPR as a Biden appointee, blocked the modified SAVE, finding that its aggregation and disclosure of sensitive data violated the Social Security Act, the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedures Act, according to NPR. She wrote that the federal government had "knowingly trampled on the privacy rights of American citizens in a manner that threatens the sacred right to vote." On September 4, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit voted 2-1 not to halt her ruling, prompting the administration's emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, according to Reuters and the LA Times.

The majority said federal law expressly authorizes DHS to request and receive citizenship and immigration information from other agencies, including the Social Security Administration, and that the federal government "has an obligation to respond" to state and local election officials seeking to verify voters' citizenship, according to Reuters, the LA Times, CBC and the New York Post. The court also wrote that the lower-court order prevents the federal government "from using the program it believes is best suited to the task." The majority said the order blocked the administration from conducting "individualized inquiries," which it said are permitted under federal law during the 90-day pre-election period, NPR reported. Norm Eisen, a former White House ethics lawyer and Trump critic, wrote that page 6 of the decision makes clear the country is inside the 90-day statutory window when mass changes cannot be made to voter lists, adding that the ruling was a bad decision for the reasons the three dissenters gave but was something "we can deal with."

Reporting on the scale of the program's use varies. CBC and the New York Post said at least 67 million registrations have been scanned through the program. The New York Post said at least 25 states have voluntarily used SAVE to check their voter rolls since April 2025, while NPR reported that Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the court that since May 2025 the updated version of SAVE had verified more than 65 million voters across 26 states and flagged 28,635 as potential noncitizens. Texas told the court it was able to run its entire list of 18 million voters through the expanded system in bulk and at no cost, according to the LA Times. The administration said DHS can respond to more than 1 million requests per day and that its data reports are not final proof of citizenship, the LA Times reported.

Some registrants have been wrongly flagged, according to the sources. In Travis County, Texas, officials said they investigated 97 voters flagged by SAVE as apparent non-citizens and found that at least 10 per cent of them, and likely up to 21 per cent, were U.S. citizens, according to CBC; the New York Post reported that at least 11 of the 97 were U.S. citizens. Reuters reported that the advocacy groups cited a Travis County election official who said 25 per cent of the system's noncitizen matches there involved people who had already proven their U.S. citizenship, and that news reports found at least 81 per cent of the system's responses in St. Louis County, Missouri, were erroneous. The modified system's overall error rate is not publicly known; Reuters reported that DHS and the Department of Justice did not provide that information when asked.

The LA Times reported that the administration had claimed Nevada had more than 15,000 noncitizens on its voter rolls, only for state election officials to confirm those voters were citizens, and that New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill learned in July that a software error had wrongly registered more than 6,000 people to vote. The LA Times also reported that it is rare to find noncitizens who cast a vote knowing it is illegal. DHS in August launched its own investigation to find non-citizen voters on state rolls, according to a federal whistleblower statement cited by CBC and the New York Post that described the effort as rushed, filled with errors and potentially in violation of state laws; DHS has defended the investigation as being conducted "diligently and professionally." Even while SAVE's use was blocked, the administration said in court filings that DHS officials continued using Social Security Administration data in certain cases to verify information and help determine whether illegal voting may have occurred, according to CBC and the New York Post.

Reuters reported that the administration's data-sharing arrangement is one of a series of actions increasing federal involvement in voting ahead of November's midterms, in which Trump's fellow Republicans seek to maintain control of Congress, and that the U.S. Constitution gives individual states the primary authority to run and administer elections. Reuters also reported that some voters flagged as potential noncitizens have had their registrations canceled. Because of separate litigation in Florida, the administration has been able to continue using its modified SAVE system in Florida, Iowa, Indiana and Ohio, according to Reuters.

The White House did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment, CBC reported. The plaintiffs said the litigation is not over.

All Perspectives
Supreme Court majority: The majority wrote that the lower-court order "prevents the Federal Government from using the program it believes is best suited to the task," that federal law expressly authorizes DHS to obtain citizenship and immigration information from other agencies including the Social Security Administration, and that the government "has an obligation to respond" to state and local election officials seeking to verify voters' citizenship. It stated that its order does not permit mass purges during the 90-day pre-election period but allows "individualized inquiries," which it said federal law permits, adding that the district court's order "inhibits the Federal Government's efforts to assist state and local agencies in the proper administration of the midterm elections."
Dissenting justices (Jackson, Kagan, Sotomayor): Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, wrote that "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." She criticized the majority's failure to consider harms that might occur if the modified system continues operating, noting the district court's finding of a risk that states might cancel the registrations of some recently naturalized citizens or force such people to provide proof of citizenship before voting. The Hill reported that Jackson authored a 12-page dissent.
Plaintiffs and counsel (League of Women Voters, Electronic Privacy Information Center, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington): The plaintiffs and counsel team called the ruling "profoundly disappointing," saying it puts "millions of Americans at risk of being unlawfully targeted by the administration's unreliable voter purge database" before the midterms, but added that "this case is not over" and that they would work to ensure the district court decision stands. In their Supreme Court brief they argued Congress has not authorized the creation of a "master database of U.S. Citizens," that multiple statutes restrict repurposing and sharing sensitive data, and that the government had not released the system's error rate or the number of people whose citizenship was misrepresented and who were forced to reverify it. They also argued SAVE data can be outdated, so naturalized citizens are sometimes labeled noncitizens.
Trump administration / Department of Justice: In a Supreme Court filing, Justice Department lawyers called the judge's order "indefensible" and said it "threatens the integrity" of the midterm elections. Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the court that upholding the data searches "would not require states, candidates, parties, or voters to do anything" and "would simply make available to states additional information," adding that states wishing to use it should be free to do so. In his appeal he wrote that the district court's order "makes it harder to detect ineligible voters, undermining the integrity of federal elections and public confidence in the results of those elections."
State of Texas: Texas intervened in the case in support of the administration and disputed claims that the system is unreliable, according to Reuters. It told the court that use of the new database "allowed Texas to more efficiently, promptly, and economically ensure the accuracy of its voter rolls," and that it was able to run its entire list of 18 million voters through the expanded checks "in bulk and for no cost," according to the LA Times.
Travis County, Texas, officials: County officials reported that they investigated 97 voters flagged by SAVE and found that some were U.S. citizens, and the county urged the Supreme Court to reject the administration's appeal, according to CBC and the New York Post. Reuters reported that the advocacy groups cited a Travis County election official who said 25 per cent of the system's noncitizen matches there involved people who had already proven their U.S. citizenship.
Common Cause: Common Cause President Virginia Kase Solomón said that "as the court noted in its decision, it is flatly illegal for states to conduct mass removals of voters from the rolls within 90 days of an election," and that if any state official attempts to disenfranchise eligible voters using the database, the group will take them to court immediately.
Michael T. Morley, Florida State law professor: Morley contended that the ruling and the data checks "will help states bolster public confidence in the integrity of the upcoming November election."
David Becker, Center for Election Innovation and Research: Becker, an election law expert, said the immediate impact on the midterms is likely limited because existing law blocks most states from systematically purging voters within 90 days of an election. He said that since the program is voluntary and DHS itself has admitted the data is not perfect, "states may find this to be a useful tool used along with other tools to keep their lists up-to-date."
Department of Homeland Security: DHS has defended its August investigation into noncitizen voters on state rolls as being conducted "diligently and professionally," according to CBC and the New York Post. Reuters reported that DHS and the Department of Justice did not provide the modified system's error rate when asked.
Norm Eisen, former White House ethics lawyer: Eisen urged Americans not to "overreact" to the ruling, writing that page 6 of the decision makes clear the country is in the 90-day statutory window when mass changes cannot be made to voter lists, and that limited "individualized inquiries" can still proceed. He described it as a bad decision for the reasons the three dissenters gave but said "we can deal w/it."

Where sources differ

  • Scale of use: CBC and the New York Post report that at least 67 million registrations have been scanned through the program, while NPR reports that Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the court more than 65 million voters had been verified across 26 states since May 2025.
  • Number of participating states: the New York Post reports at least 25 states have voluntarily used SAVE since April 2025, while NPR reports Sauer's filing said the updated system had verified voters in 26 states.
  • Travis County, Texas, error figures: CBC reports officials investigated 97 flagged voters and found at least 10 per cent, and likely up to 21 per cent, were U.S. citizens; the New York Post reports at least 11 of the 97 were U.S. citizens; Reuters reports an election official said 25 per cent of the system's noncitizen matches there involved people who had already proven their U.S. citizenship.
  • Characterisation of the ruling's practical effect: CBC quotes election law expert David Becker saying the immediate impact on the midterms is likely limited because existing law blocks most systematic purges within 90 days, while the LA Times likewise describes limited impact; the New York Post frames the order as a temporary victory for the White House and notes the court's warning about the timing, and Reuters describes it as reviving the database.
Gaps & Unknowns
  • None of the sources establishes the overall error rate of the modified SAVE system; Reuters reports DHS and the Department of Justice did not provide it when asked, and NPR reports the government had not released the error rate or the number of people whose citizenship was misrepresented and who were forced to reverify it.
  • The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment, according to CBC, so no direct statement from the White House is available in any source.
  • No source establishes how many flagged registrations have led to actual voter-registration cancellations nationally, or how many states will act on the ruling before the midterms.
  • The sources do not establish the final outcome of the underlying district court litigation; the plaintiffs state only that the case is not over and that they will seek to ensure the district court decision stands.
  • The sources do not establish which specific states besides Florida, Iowa, Indiana and Ohio have used the modified system under separate litigation, nor the full list of states that submitted briefs in the case.
  • No source establishes the exact vote count of the Supreme Court order, which The Hill reports was unsigned and provided no vote count.
Sources & Further Reading
  1. The Hill — original — by Sarah Davis
  2. CBC News
  3. The Jerusalem Post — by REUTERS
  4. New York Post — by Samuel Chamberlain
  5. Daily Montanan — by Micah Drew
  6. LA Times — by David G. Savage
  7. NPR News — by Jude Joffe-Block

Read the original at The Hill

Related Coverage