The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 emergency ruling on Sept. 25 allowing the Trump administration to resume using an expanded federal database to help states verify the citizenship of individuals on voter rolls. The decision pauses a lower-court order that had blocked the revamped system, granting the administration a temporary victory ahead of the November midterm elections.
The database, known as Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE), is managed by the Department of Homeland Security. Originally created in 1986 to verify the immigration status of people applying for public benefits, the system was recently overhauled following an executive order from President Donald Trump. The revamped version allows for bulk searches and incorporates Social Security numbers and records from the Social Security Administration, covering natural-born citizens as well as naturalized citizens and immigrants.
Legal Dispute and Lower Court Rulings
The Supreme Court’s intervention follows a June ruling by U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan in Washington, D.C., who declared the revamped system illegal. Judge Sooknanan stated the government had knowingly trampled on the privacy rights of American citizens
and violated federal privacy protections designed to prevent the creation of a centralized data bank. She further noted that the government included citizenship data it knew to be unreliable.
The Trump administration appealed the decision, arguing that the database complies with the law and that the federal government has an obligation to respond
to states seeking citizenship verification. The Justice Department claimed that without the revamped SAVE system, it would be forced to use a process that is older, slower, more cumbersome, and less capable.
In an unsigned opinion, the Supreme Court majority found that a 1996 law allows the Department of Homeland Security to obtain immigration and citizenship data from other federal agencies. The majority concluded that the lower court’s order prevents the Federal Government from using the program it believes is best suited to the task.
Dissent and Concerns Over Voter Disenfranchisement
The court’s three liberal justices—Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor—dissented from the ruling. Justice Jackson expressed concern that the system could mistakenly revoke the voting rights of eligible citizens. She 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
.
Voting rights and privacy advocates have warned that the database is “error-laden” and puts millions of Americans at risk of being unlawfully targeted.
Impact on Midterm Elections
Despite the ruling, the immediate impact on the upcoming midterms is limited. The Supreme Court noted that the National Voter Registration Act prohibits broad or mass purges of voter rolls in the weeks before an election. Consequently, the database can currently only be used for inquiries regarding individual voters.
The use of the SAVE program remains voluntary for states.
Legal challenges to the SAVE system will continue as the broader dispute moves through the courts.
Related reading