The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday, September 25, 2026, granted the Trump administration’s request to lift a lower-court injunction blocking access to an expanded federal database used to verify voter citizenship status. The decision allows state officials to use the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program to cross-reference voter registration records with federal citizenship data, including Social Security numbers, ahead of the November midterm elections.
The court’s 6-3 ruling, issued along ideological lines, reversed a June decision by U.S. District Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan, a Biden appointee, who had blocked the program as unlawful and a violation of privacy rights. The Supreme Court’s unsigned order stated that federal law likely authorizes the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to share citizenship data with states for election verification purposes. The three liberal justices—Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan—dissented, arguing the program risks disenfranchising eligible voters.
How the SAVE Program Works
Originally created in 1986 to verify immigration status for government benefits, the SAVE database was expanded in March 2025 via executive order to include Social Security records and enable bulk searches. The revamped system allows states to scan millions of voter registrations against federal records to identify potential noncitizens. Since its expansion, Republican-led states including Texas and Florida have used the tool to audit their voter rolls, with some registrations canceled after matches flagged potential noncitizenship.
Legal and Political Context
The Supreme Court’s decision comes amid a broader push by the Trump administration to tighten election integrity measures. Critics, including voting rights advocates and Democratic officials, argue the program is prone to errors that could wrongly remove citizens from voter rolls. A federal judge previously found the revamped SAVE program violated privacy laws by “knowingly trampling on the privacy rights” of U.S. citizens. Supporters, including the administration and GOP-led states, contend the tool is necessary to prevent noncitizen voting, citing federal obligations to assist states in election administration.
Scope and Limitations
While the ruling permits the use of SAVE, its immediate impact on the midterms may be limited. Federal law prohibits states from conducting systematic voter roll purges within 90 days of an election, meaning any removals would require individualized verification. The court acknowledged this constraint in its order, noting that the National Voter Registration Act restricts broad purges near election dates. Participation in the SAVE program remains voluntary for states, and its use does not compel action by election officials.
Reactions and Responses
The Justice Department hailed the decision as a victory for election integrity, stating the program helps states ensure only citizens vote. Texas, which used the expanded SAVE system to audit its 18 million voter records, praised the ruling for enabling “more efficient” and cost-effective verification. In contrast, voting rights groups and Democratic lawmakers condemned the decision, warning of potential voter suppression. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other organizations have previously documented cases where the SAVE program produced false positives, leading to incorrect citizenship determinations.
Background: The SAVE Program’s Track Record
The SAVE database has a history of inaccuracies, with prior instances of naturalized citizens and eligible voters being misidentified as noncitizens. A 2025 report cited by critics highlighted cases where the program flagged individuals who had legally obtained citizenship, raising concerns about its reliability. The Trump administration has defended the tool as a necessary safeguard against fraud, while opponents argue it creates unnecessary barriers for eligible voters, particularly naturalized citizens and minority groups who may face higher rates of data mismatches.
What’s Next
The Supreme Court’s order is temporary, pending further legal proceedings. The case will proceed through lower courts, where the underlying merits of the program’s legality will be debated. In the meantime, states may continue to use the SAVE program for individualized citizenship checks, though systemic purges remain prohibited until after the midterms. The decision underscores ongoing tensions between federal election oversight and state-level autonomy in administering elections.