Full Breakdown
Supreme Court Allows Use of Revamped SAVE Database for Voter Citizenship Checks
By Drooid · · How we work
Supreme Court Decision and Immediate Effect
On September 25, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 emergency order staying a June district-court injunction that had barred the Department of Homeland Security’s expanded Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database. The stay permits states that choose to do so to employ the revamped SAVE system for individualized voter-roll checks ahead of the upcoming general election. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a dissent.
Legal and Policy Background
SAVE was created in 1986 to confirm immigration status for federal benefit programs. An executive order signed by President Donald Trump in March 2025 directed DHS and the Social Security Administration to expand SAVE to include records of native-born citizens, Social Security numbers, and bulk-search capabilities. Critics argue the overhaul violates the Privacy Act, the Social Security Act and the Administrative Procedures Act by consolidating sensitive personal data without proper notice or public comment.
Enforcement Activity and Prosecutions
Acting Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter announced that the administration has charged 70 people in voting-fraud cases this year, including Khalwinder Singh Bhengura, a 69-year-old Indian immigrant who voted in the 2024 presidential election while only a green-card holder. A Votebeat review of Justice Department releases since June 1 identified 41 recent cases involving noncitizen voting accusations, spanning ages 19 to 73 and at least 18 countries of origin. Roughly half of the defendants reside in Texas and New Jersey; the remainder are spread across a dozen other states.
Official Statements & Responses
- Solicitor General D.
- Markwayne Mullin (Secretary of Homeland Security) suggested that “as many as 250,000 noncitizens” could be registered to vote in four states, a figure later questioned by state election officials.
Criticism & Opposition
Voting-rights groups—including the League of Women Voters and the Electronic Privacy Information Center—argued that the expanded database provides inaccurate citizenship data, leading to wrongful removal of lawful voters. The three dissenting justices emphasized that “the harm caused by burdening or disenfranchising even a few lawful voters outweighs the nonexistent harm that the Government experiences when it is prevented from taking an action that it likely lacks the authority to take.”
Verbatim Quotes
- “The harm caused by burdening or disenfranchising even a few lawful voters outweighs the nonexistent harm that the Government experiences when it is prevented from taking an action that it likely lacks the authority to take,” — Ketanji Brown Jackson
- “SAVE does not disqualify any voter; instead, it merely notifies the States whether the federal government can confirm citizenship,” — General D. John Sauer
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
- DHS Secretary Mullin’s estimate of up to 250,000 noncitizen registrations contrasts sharply with findings that noncitizen voting is “exceedingly rare.”
- A DHS whistleblower later clarified that the agency’s claim of 15,903 noncitizen voters in Nevada was actually “just 185 potential noncitizens,” and Nevada officials confirmed the number was zero.
- The Department of Justice has lost 25 lawsuits seeking unredacted voter rolls, indicating limited judicial support for the administration’s broader data-collection strategy.
Impact and Outlook
Federal law bars states from conducting systematic voter-list purges within 90 days of an election, limiting the immediate effect of the Supreme Court’s stay on the 2026 midterms. Nonetheless, the decision restores the administration’s ability to use SAVE for individualized checks and could shape political narratives in the coming election cycle. Future litigation may address whether the expanded database complies with privacy statutes and whether its use constitutes an unlawful intrusion into state-run election administration.