Pull to refresh
Logo
Daily Brief
Following Why Sign Up
Supreme Court allows expanded citizenship-check database before midterms

Supreme Court allows expanded citizenship-check database before midterms

Rule Changes

Justices stay lower-court block, letting states use Social Security records to verify voters pending appeal

Today: Supreme Court allows program to resume

Overview

Updated 1 hour ago

Texas ran all 18 million of its registered voters through an expanded federal citizenship-check database in a single pass. On Friday, the Supreme Court cleared the way for that system to keep running through the November midterms.

The justices stayed a June order that had blocked the program for violating federal privacy law, with three liberals dissenting. Federal law bars systematic voter-roll purges in the 90 days before an election, so the near-term impact is limited to individual checks—though Travis County, Texas, found at least 10% of roughly 100 flagged voters were actually U.S. citizens.

Why it matters

States can now use Social Security data to challenge individual voters' citizenship before the midterms, though the system's error rate risks flagging naturalized citizens.

Questions about this story

Free account needed to ask — your question is kept and asked for you right after sign-up. Answers are public.

No questions yet — be the first to ask.

Key Indicators

18M
Voters checked in one bulk pass by Texas
Texas ran its entire registration list through the modified SAVE database at no cost.
10%+
Share of Travis County flagged voters who were citizens
Of nearly 100 voters flagged as non-citizens in Travis County, at least 10% were U.S. citizens, per U.S. media reports.
3
Non-citizens charged with illegal voting in Texas
Total since Texas began checking voter rolls with SAVE last year.
39
Days between the ruling and the November midterms
The stay issued on September 25, 2026, 39 days before the November 3 election.

Voices

Curated perspectives — historical figures and your fellow readers.

Ever wondered what historical figures would say about today's headlines?

Sign up to generate historical perspectives on this story.

Log in Sign Up

People Involved

Donald Trump
Donald Trump
President of the United States
Signed the executive order that created the modified SAVE program
 Ketanji Brown Jackson
Ketanji Brown Jackson
Supreme Court Justice
Wrote the sole dissent in the SAVE stay ruling
 Sparkle Sooknanan
Sparkle Sooknanan
U.S. District Judge, District of Columbia
Her order blocking modified SAVE was stayed by the Supreme Court
 Gregory Katsas
Gregory Katsas
Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Lone panel vote to grant the government's stay request

Organizations Involved

Supreme Court of the United States
Supreme Court of the United States
Federal Court
Granted stay allowing the modified SAVE program to resume

The highest federal court in the United States.
Department of Homeland Security Investigations
Department of Homeland Security Investigations
Federal Agency
Operates the SAVE program

Federal department responsible for immigration enforcement and the SAVE verification program.
Social Security Administration
Social Security Administration
Federal Agency
Provides records to the expanded SAVE program

Federal agency that administers Social Security and maintains citizenship and Social Security number records.
League of Women Voters of Massachusetts
League of Women Voters of Massachusetts
Nonprofit Organization
Lead plaintiff challenging the modified SAVE program

Voting rights and civic engagement nonprofit organization.
Electronic Privacy Information Center
Electronic Privacy Information Center
Nonprofit Organization
Co-plaintiff in the lawsuit

Privacy advocacy group focused on government data collection and surveillance.

Timeline

January 1986 September 2026

5 events Latest: Today
Tap a bar to jump to that date

  1. Supreme Court allows program to resume

    Today Legal

    Justices stay the lower-court block pending appeal, with Jackson, Sotomayor, and Kagan dissenting.

  2. District Court blocks modified SAVE

    Legal

    Judge Sooknanan vacates the program, ruling it violates the Privacy Act, Social Security Act, and APA.

  3. DHS launches modified SAVE program

    Policy

    Expanded database adds Social Security record checks and bulk-search capability for state authorities.

  4. Trump signs executive order on voter citizenship checks

    Executive Action

    Executive Order 14248 directs DHS and SSA to build systems for states to verify voter citizenship.

  5. SAVE program created

    Policy

    Congress establishes Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements to verify citizenship for benefit applications.

Scenarios

1

Appeals court upholds expanded SAVE program

Likely Resolves by Q2 2027

Discussed by: Supreme Court majority (wrote challengers' claims 'likely lack merit'); Trump administration

The D.C. Circuit or the Supreme Court, in a final ruling, concludes Congress authorized DHS to obtain citizenship and Social Security data, and that the Privacy Act claims fail. The modified SAVE program would remain available to states in future elections.

2

Expanded SAVE struck down on full review

Possible Resolves by Q2 2027

Discussed by: Judge Sooknanan; League of Women Voters; Electronic Privacy Information Center; three dissenting justices

On appeal, the D.C. Circuit or Supreme Court agrees the expanded program violates the Privacy Act's record rules or exceeds the agencies' statutory authority, permanently blocking the Social Security data checks and bulk searches.

3

NVRA ruling bars systematic voter removals

Uncertain Resolves by Q2 2027

Discussed by: Supreme Court footnote citing Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota, No. 25-1017

In the companion case, the Court rules the National Voter Registration Act's 90-day quiet period bars states from running systematic removal programs before federal elections. That would block bulk SAVE checks in the weeks before votes but allow individualized citizenship inquiries.

Historical Context

3 moments from history that rhyme with this story — and how they unfolded.

1998–2000

Florida's 2000 voter purge

Florida hired a private vendor to remove felons from its voter rolls ahead of the 2000 presidential election. The error-prone list flagged thousands of eligible voters, many of them Black Floridians, who were stripped from the rolls or forced to cast provisional ballots.

Then

The purge fed into the recount controversy that decided the election; Florida later admitted errors and paid settlements.

Now

It became the standard example of how flawed lists disenfranchise eligible voters, shaping how courts scrutinize purge programs.

Why this matters now

Both programs remove voters based on error-prone government data, and both draw scrutiny over which voters bear the cost of the mistakes.

2017–2018

Georgia exact-match verification (2017–2018)

Georgia began requiring voter registrations to match state and federal databases exactly, flagging any record with a discrepancy. Naturalized citizens were disproportionately affected, as were voters whose middle names or suffixes differed.

Then

Civil rights groups sued, and Georgia stopped blocking registrations over database mismatches.

Now

Established that database-matching verification systems can violate the National Voter Registration Act when they burden eligible voters.

Why this matters now

Shows the recurring pattern: database-matching voter verification flags naturalized citizens at higher rates, the same error type SAVE critics document.

May 2017 – January 2018

Kobach election integrity commission (2017)

Trump created the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity to investigate his claims of widespread voter fraud, asking every state to hand over detailed voter records. Most states refused or limited what they provided.

Then

The commission dissolved in January 2018 without releasing findings.

Now

Produced no evidence of widespread non-citizen voting, but established the administrative push to verify voter rolls with federal data.

Why this matters now

The SAVE expansion is a successor to that push, again built on claims of mass non-citizen voting that election officials have not corroborated.

Sources

(10)
+4
Supreme Court of the United States SCOTUSblog BBC The Washington Post Los Angeles Times The Hill Reuters The Guardian Bloomberg Law NPR