
Privacy Act
1974 US law limiting how federal agencies collect and share personal records.
The Privacy Act was the challengers' main shield against DHS's bulk SAVE citizenship checks until 25 September 2026, when a 6-3 Supreme Court stay let the department restart the system before the midterms.
Last refreshed: 1 October 2026 · Appears in 1 active topic
Timeline for Privacy Act
Mentioned in: Supreme Court revives DHS's SAVE checks
US Midterms 2026Background
The Privacy Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-579), codified at 5 U.S.C. 552a, governs the records federal agencies keep on individuals. Its central rule bars an agency from disclosing a record from a system of records to another person or agency without the individual's written consent, unless one of the Act's listed exceptions applies. The Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 added rules for automated matching of federal databases.
The Act is the main federal limit on how FAR agencies can pool what they know about citizens. That makes it the natural ground for challenging any programme that joins up federal files, from benefits databases to immigration records.
Bulk comparison of voter lists with federal data has made it a recurring question in election law. Its weight against other federal statutes in that setting was tested directly in 2026, when the Supreme Court sided with DHS at the stay stage.
The Act failed to halt the checks
Challengers to the Department of Homeland Security's modified SAVE System argued that pooling Social Security records for bulk citizenship searches broke the Privacy Act's limits on sharing personal files between agencies. They won in the district court on 22 June 2026 and held that win at the D.C. Circuit on 4 September.
the Supreme Court's 25 September stay changed the position. The majority treated a 1996 immigration statute as authorising the data exchange despite the Privacy Act, and voted 6-3 to let DHS restart the system. The ruling was a stay, not a final judgment, so the Act's reach over federal voter-data matching remains a live question in the litigation.