Political Guyentist
← Back to issue
BoardScroll
PBS NEWSHOURUpdate

Supreme Court lets states resume checking voter rolls against Trump's expanded federal citizenship database while the case is appealed

Immigration enforcement
Political Guyentist · September 27, 20263 min read

PBS NEWSHOUR

Federal law bars systematic voter-roll purges within 90 days of a federal election, and Nov. 3 is less than 40 days away.

The Supreme Court on Friday, Sept. 25, paused a June ruling by U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan that had blocked the Trump administration's rebuilt SAVE system (a Homeland Security tool, created in 1986 to check immigrants' eligibility for benefits, that states can query to learn whether a voter is a citizen). The unsigned order said the challengers' claims "likely lack merit." Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented in 12 pages, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan; the order lists no formal vote count.

The rebuild. The revamp added Social Security data, so states can search by Social Security number, and let them submit whole voter rolls in bulk instead of one name at a time. Sooknanan had found the administration "knowingly trampled on the privacy rights of American citizens."

The limit. The National Voter Registration Act bars systematic purges within 90 days of a federal election, and Nov. 3 was less than 40 days away when the order landed. Using SAVE is voluntary; 27 states do.

What next. The case returns to the D.C. Circuit, which has not scheduled arguments. The stay holds through that appeal and any Supreme Court petition.

How we got herethe story so far
  • 2025 — The Trump administration rebuilt SAVE, a Homeland Security citizenship check, adding Social Security data and bulk uploads of whole voter rolls, and states began running their rolls through it.
  • June 22 — U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan blocked the rebuilt system, finding the administration had knowingly trampled citizens' privacy rights.
  • Sept. 4 — A D.C. Circuit panel refused 2-1 to pause her ruling during the appeal.
  • Sept. 8 — Solicitor General D. John Sauer asked the Supreme Court for an emergency stay, calling the order "indefensible."
What the order's reasoning forecasts for the full appealThe majority read a 1996 immigration law as likely overriding privacy limits elsewhere in federal law2 details
  • The majority read a 1996 immigration law as likely overriding privacy limits elsewhere in federal law
  • It said it is likely to reverse findings that the revamp broke the Social Security Act, Privacy Act and federal rulemaking law

What we’re less sure of2 of 9 claims

Red take

The Supreme Court was right to keep SAVE, the Homeland Security citizenship check, running. Only citizens may vote, and states need a reliable way to confirm it. The Court's order found the challengers' claims 'likely lack merit' under a 1996 immigration law. The privacy worry is real. Social Security data now sits in a federal tool, and Judge Sparkle Sooknanan, who blocked the system in June, called that trampling citizens' rights. But blocking SAVE would not un-share a single record. It would only leave the 27 states that chose it guessing who is eligible, weeks before Nov. 3, on a claim the Court expects to fail.

Blue take

The stay should not have been granted, because it lets an irreversible privacy harm run before any appeals court has weighed it. Judge Sparkle Sooknanan, who heard the evidence, found the administration 'knowingly trampled on the privacy rights of American citizens' by pouring Social Security data into a tool built to check immigrants' benefits. States have a real interest in confirming citizenship, and the 90-day rule limits removals before Nov. 3. But the Court's 'likely lack merit' is a forecast, not a ruling. Pausing costs states some convenience. Proceeding exposes citizens' records that no later judgment can pull back.