Trump Asks Supreme Court to Restore Immigration Database Checks of State Voter Rolls

The Trump administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to revive a federal system that allows states to conduct large-scale citizenship checks of their voter rolls using immigration and Social Security records, less than two months before the November midterm elections.

The Department of Homeland Security filed an emergency application Tuesday, September 8, seeking to suspend a lower-court ruling that dismantled an expanded version of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements system, commonly known as SAVE.

The administration says the database gives states an important way to verify that registered voters are U.S. citizens. Voting-rights and privacy groups contend that the system relies on records that can be outdated or inaccurate and could cause eligible citizens, particularly naturalized Americans, to be wrongly flagged as noncitizens.

The case, Department of Homeland Security v. League of Women Voters, is before the Supreme Court as No. 26A308. The administration is asking the justices for emergency relief while its appeal continues in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer called the lower court’s ruling “indefensible” and told the Supreme Court it threatens election integrity by preventing the federal government from using Social Security data when states request citizenship verification.

A federal district judge and a divided federal appeals court have so far rejected the administration’s arguments.

U.S. District Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan ruled June 22 that the government unlawfully transformed SAVE by combining federal databases containing information about millions of Americans. She found that the modified system violated the Social Security Act, the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act and ordered the changes set aside.

The D.C. Circuit refused by a 2-1 vote on September 4 to suspend her ruling while the government appeals. Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan and Judge Robert Wilkins concluded that the administration had not made the strong showing required to obtain a stay. Judge Gregory Katsas dissented.

The dispute centers on changes DHS began making to SAVE in 2025.

Federal, state, and local agencies had traditionally used SAVE to verify immigration or citizenship status for government benefits, licenses, and other programs. Its usefulness for voter-roll reviews was limited because searches generally required an immigration identifier, such as an alien registration number, that natural-born U.S. citizens do not have.

The administration expanded the system after President Donald Trump signed a March 2025 executive order directing federal agencies to provide states with greater access to federal information for checking citizenship and voter eligibility. The White House said the changes were intended to strengthen election integrity and prevent noncitizens from registering or voting.

DHS modified SAVE so users could search using Social Security numbers and submit large batches of names rather than checking individuals one at a time.

Under the expanded process, a user can upload information including a person’s name, date of birth, and full or partial Social Security number. SAVE checks Social Security Administration records and, when necessary, other federal systems to determine whether the government can confirm that the individual is a U.S. citizen.

If the system cannot confirm citizenship, it does not formally declare the person a noncitizen. Instead, the state or other government agency conducting the search may be prompted to obtain additional proof from that person.

That distinction is central to the administration’s Supreme Court argument.

The Justice Department says SAVE itself does not remove anyone from voter rolls and merely provides states with federal information. Any decision to challenge or cancel a voter registration is made by state officials, the government argues.

The plaintiffs say the distinction offers little protection when the federal data itself is inaccurate.

The lawsuit was brought by the League of Women Voters, several state League affiliates and the Electronic Privacy Information Center. They argue that Social Security records do not always reflect later changes in citizenship status.

A person who obtained a Social Security number while legally present as a noncitizen may later become a naturalized U.S. citizen without updating the citizenship designation in Social Security records. Using that information in a mass voter-roll review could therefore produce a false indication that federal records cannot confirm the voter’s citizenship.

That concern played an important role in the D.C. Circuit’s ruling.

The appeals court cited sworn declarations from U.S. citizens in Louisiana and Virginia who obtained Social Security numbers before naturalization and said Social Security records continued to identify them as noncitizens. Both states had agreed to use modified SAVE for voter-list maintenance.

The appellate majority also pointed to evidence that inaccurate citizenship information had already resulted in voters being required to prove citizenship to remain registered and, in some instances, facing cancellation of their registrations.

The legal dispute is not limited to election policy.

A major part of the case concerns federal privacy law and the circumstances under which Social Security information can be shared between government agencies.

The Social Security Act generally requires Social Security numbers and certain related records to remain confidential. Sooknanan found that the expanded SAVE system unlawfully allowed Social Security information to be used and disclosed through a new federal verification system without sufficient statutory authorization.

The administration argues that a separate federal immigration statute gives DHS the authority it needs.

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1373, DHS must respond when a federal, state or local government agency asks it to verify an individual’s citizenship or immigration status for a lawful purpose. Sauer argues that the duty necessarily permits DHS to check other federal records, including Social Security data, when responding to those requests.

The government also contends that the Social Security Act’s confidentiality provisions do not prohibit the data exchanges involved in SAVE.

The D.C. Circuit majority was not persuaded at the emergency stage.

It concluded that the government had failed to raise some of its Social Security Act arguments at the proper time before the district court. The majority also said that even considering those arguments, the administration had not demonstrated a strong likelihood of ultimately succeeding.

Katsas disagreed.

In dissent, he concluded that the government was likely to show that the expanded system complies with the Social Security Act and that the balance of harms favored allowing it to operate while the appeal proceeds.

The Supreme Court is not being asked to decide the entire case at this stage.

The administration is seeking a stay, an emergency order that would temporarily suspend Sooknanan’s judgment while the government continues its appeal. Granting the request would allow DHS to resume the expanded SAVE system without waiting for the D.C. Circuit to issue a final decision.

A denial would leave the lower court’s order in effect while the litigation continues.

The timing makes the request more significant.

The November 3 midterms are approaching, and several Republican-led states have already used citizenship data from the expanded SAVE system to compare against voter-registration records. Reuters reported that some states canceled registrations after individuals were flagged as noncitizens, while the plaintiffs say eligible citizens have also been wrongly identified.

The case arrives at the Supreme Court alongside another major election dispute involving the administration’s attempt to impose new federal requirements on mail-in ballots.

In that separate case, the Justice Department is asking the justices to allow a U.S. Postal Service rule requiring states to provide lists of mail-ballot recipients and use specially approved barcoded envelopes. A federal judge blocked those requirements shortly before states began sending ballots.

Together, the cases place two parts of the administration’s broader election agenda before the Supreme Court shortly before voting begins nationwide.

The SAVE dispute could have consequences beyond the 2026 election.

A Supreme Court ruling allowing the expanded system to operate could strengthen the federal government’s role in helping states conduct large-scale citizenship checks using information gathered for immigration and Social Security purposes. Leaving the lower-court decision intact would reinforce statutory limits on how federal agencies can combine and disclose personal information, even when the government says it is being used to enforce voting qualifications.

Federal law already prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections. The dispute before the Court concerns the method used to identify potentially ineligible voters and the safeguards required when federal records are used to do so.

For now, states can still use the older version of SAVE for individualized citizenship inquiries. The D.C. Circuit specifically noted that the lower court’s ruling does not eliminate the longstanding verification system. What remains blocked is the expanded version that combines Social Security information with bulk-search capabilities.

The Supreme Court must now decide whether that expanded system can return while the lower courts continue reviewing its legality.