The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday that states may use the federal SAVE database to verify voter citizenship, reversing lower court decisions that found the database was inaccurate and would likely disenfranchise eligible voters.
In its opinion, the majority wrote that “the Federal Government has an obligation to respond to requests from state and local election officials seeking to verify the citizenship of voters.”
“The District Court’s order thus inhibits the Federal Government’s efforts to assist state and local agencies in the proper administration of the midterm elections, the ruling reads. “Under these circumstances, the equities weigh in favor of a stay.”
The Department of Homeland Security initially designed the SAVE database to determine benefit eligibility for immigrants and to track applicants pursuing U.S. citizenship. Under the Trump administration, it had been repurposed to screen voters for citizenship. Critics say the tool is outdated, often inaccurate and poses a significant risk of wrongly removing eligible voters from rolls.
Voting rights groups, including the League of Women Voters and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, filed suit last year. They argued that combining SAVE data with Social Security records violated confidentiality provisions in the Social Security Act, the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedures Act.
While the ruling permits states to use the database, adoption remains uncertain. Some conservative states have used SAVE previously, saying it has been helpful in maintaining voter rolls. However, most states have resisted the federal government’s efforts to use citizenship verification systems or wrest control of voter registration efforts away from states. The Trump administration has lost 23 federal court cases in attempts to compel states to share additional data.
Election experts said that the ruling’s impact on 2026 is likely to be limited because of federal laws that bar states from making changes to voter registration within 90 days of an election.
“Given that the SAVE system is used purely as a voluntary system to assist states in keeping their voter lists accurate, states may find this to be a helpful tool to use alongside other mechanisms to keep their lists up to date, even as the Department of Homeland Security itself admits the data is not perfect and evidence suggests the SAVE system has significant flaws,” said David Becker, executive director of the nonprofit Center for Election Innovation and Research.
Three justices – Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan – dissented, noting that “without full briefing or oral argument, this Court now grants [a stay]—rendering questionable interim rulings about two statutory provisions it has never before interpreted.”
There are laws and procedures that govern how and when federal systems are changed or modified. In this case, DHS did not create a legally mandated system of records notice (SORN) for the SAVE database outlining the broader impacts of the changes on data privacy. Nor did they engage in or offer a public comment period. Instead, they simply announced in May 2025 that the database was ready for use.
In court, the administration cited the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act to justify merging DHS and Social Security data. That argument was rejected by lower courts, and dissenters argued that the Supreme Court majority overturned those rulings without deliberation about whether the administration’s legal reasoning was sound.
“The majority thus treats [the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act] as essentially overriding the limits that privacy laws impose on the sharing of citizenship information with DHS. But that ‘back-of-the-napkin assessment,’ is implausible,” wrote Jackson.