27OCT

Supreme Court revives DHS's SAVE checks

3 min read

13:20UTC

The Supreme Court let DHS restore its expanded SAVE citizenship-check system by 6-3 on 25 September, but left the fight over pre-election voter removals to a December hearing.

← Back to Senate Democrats borrow $15m, outspend GOP Jump to analysis ↓

PoliticsAssessed

Key takeaway

DHS can run bulk citizenship checks again, but the limits on pre-election removals wait until December.

The Supreme Court granted the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) a stay by 6-3 on 25 September in Department of Homeland Security v. League of Women Voters (No. 26A308), letting it restore its expanded citizenship-check system⁠¹. A stay pauses a lower-court ruling while appeals run. The system, SAVE (the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements programme), now links Social Security Administration records and accepts bulk queries from state and local election officials.

Judge Sparkle Sooknanan, a federal trial judge in Washington, had set the modified system aside on 22 June, and the US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit refused to revive it on 4 September. The majority read IIRIRA (the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996) as letting DHS and Social Security share citizenship data despite the Privacy Act. It also found the challengers likely to lose on the merits.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, dissented. "In the three decades since Congress enacted IIRIRA, the Government has never invoked §1373 in that way," she wrote. Her dissent cites district-court findings that one of the challengers' members in Texas "had her voter registration revoked without her knowledge", and that two more had to prove their citizenship to stay registered. A wrong flag puts the burden of proof on an eligible voter.

Footnote 2 of the unsigned opinion holds back the larger question: how far the 90-day quiet period in the NVRA (National Voter Registration Act of 1993) limits systematic removals before a federal election. the Court will settle that in Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota (No. 25-1017), set for argument on 8 December, five weeks after polling day⁠². The quiet period for 3 November opened on 5 August, and Jackson's dissent expects states to "at most conduct individualized voter-roll maintenance" before the vote. States can run the checks now; the Court's answer on what they may do with the results arrives after the election it governs.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

SAVE is a federal computer system run by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Officials type in a person's details and it says whether that person is a citizen. This year DHS connected SAVE to Social Security records and let states check whole voter lists at once. A lower court blocked that in June. On 25 September the Supreme Court let DHS switch it back on while the appeal continues. There is a catch for the 3 November election. A 1993 federal law says states cannot run mass clean-ups of voter lists in the 90 days before a federal election. States can still check a single voter they have doubts about.

Deep Analysis

Root Causes

SAVE was built to check immigrants applying for benefits, one case at a time, against DHS immigration files. It held no record of people born in the United States, so it could not confirm most voters' citizenship. Linking Social Security's Numident file changed that, because Social Security records carry citizenship data for most people who hold a Social Security number.

That field is only as current as the last time a person told Social Security about a change. A naturalised citizen who never visited an office after taking the oath can still read as a non-citizen. The legal fight therefore turned on data-sharing authority, while the practical risk sits in stale records.

The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 adds a timing wall. Its 90-day quiet period bars systematic removals close to a federal election, and for 3 November that window opened on 5 August.

Escalation

Rising for 2028, flat for 2026. The 90-day rule caps what states can do before 3 November, but the Court's reading of section 1373 removes the main legal barrier to bulk checks once that window closes. The next step is the Court's ruling in RNC v. Mi Familia Vota (No. 25-1017), argued 8 December.

What could happen next?

Precedent
The majority's reading of section 1373 lets federal agencies share citizenship data for election checks notwithstanding the Privacy Act, a reading Justice Jackson says no administration used before.
Long term · Assessed
Consequence
Before 3 November, states may use the expanded SAVE only for individual checks because the NVRA's 90-day quiet period opened on 5 August.
Immediate · Assessed
Risk
Naturalised citizens with out-of-date Social Security records may be flagged and asked to prove citizenship, the harm the Louisiana plaintiff alleged.
Short term · Suggested

Source Landscape

This story draws on neutral-leaning sources

Primary parallel: In January 2019 Texas Secretary of State David Whitley flagged about 95,000 registered voters as possible non-citizens using driver licence records. Many were naturalised citizens whose files predated their citizenship; the state settled the resulting suits and Whitley resigned that May.

Counter-parallel: Before this ruling, the D.C. Circuit had refused 2-1 on 4 September to revive the modified SAVE, holding the government had forfeited its main Social Security Act argument. the Supreme Court reached the opposite result by relying on section 1373 of IIRIRA.

Consensus view: The per curiam majority read section 1373 of the 1996 immigration law (IIRIRA) as overriding the Privacy Act and the Social Security Act, so DHS may pull Social Security citizenship data into SAVE. It found the plaintiffs likely had standing, through a naturalised Louisiana voter whose Social Security record was out of date, but likely lose on the merits.

Counter-view: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's dissent says the government has never used section 1373 this way in the three decades since 1996, and that wrongly flagging 'even a few lawful voters' outweighs any harm to the government. She predicted the ruling 'will likely have minimal short-term impact' because states can only make individual checks before November.

Key tension: Whether Social Security's citizenship field is accurate enough for 50 states to act on. Naturalised citizens who never updated their record show as non-citizens, and the stay arrived before any court tested how often that happens.

First Reported In

Update #19 · Bulk voter citizenship checks are back

Supreme Court of the United States· 1 Oct 2026

Read original →

Causes and effects

Caused by

D.C. Circuit keeps SAVE database offline

The D.C. Circuit's 4 September refusal to revive SAVE left DHS to seek the Supreme Court stay granted on 25 September.

Occurred 4 Sept 2026

Read story →

This Event

Supreme Court revives DHS's SAVE checks

Election officials can again run bulk citizenship checks backed by Social Security records before 3 November, while the limits on acting on the results stay unsettled until after the vote.

Led to

North Carolina's rolls held 35,000 dead

North Carolina published its SAVE result on the day the Supreme Court restored the modified system.

Occurred 25 Sept 2026

Read story →

Judge voids DOJ's SAVE voter-roll policy

Sooknanan, whose June SAVE ruling the Supreme Court stayed, ruled on what DOJ does with the system's output.

Occurred 9 Oct 2026

Read story →

North Carolina's SAVE check flags 1,392

North Carolina ran bulk SAVE checks after the Supreme Court restored them on 25 September.

Occurred 13 Oct 2026

Read story →

US backs RNC in Mi Familia Vota case

The SAVE stay left the reach of the NVRA quiet period to RNC v. Mi Familia Vota.

Occurred 16 Oct 2026

Read story →

Different Perspectives

Department of Justice (DOJ)

DOJ appealed to the 9th Circuit after Judge David O. Carter did not rule by a noon deadline on 22 October that DOJ itself had set, seeking to have California set aside mail ballots from more than 20,000 listed voters. Its case is that ineligible votes cancel lawful ones; the panel dismissed the appeal 2-1 on 26 October.

Lower Costs Now

Lower Costs Now reported $7.37m in Kansas on 24 and 25 October, part of $65.65m in Senate races since its first independent expenditure on 1 October, including $17.21m for Josh Turek in Iowa. Its FEC filings show $50.18m raised by 14 October.

MAGA Inc

MAGA Inc, the super PAC aligned with Donald Trump, filed $7.20m against James Talarico on 22 October, taking its Texas spending to $37.65m. Of that, $30.12m is against Talarico and $7.53m is for Ken Paxton, the Republican nominee.

Senate Majority PAC (SMP)

SMP's pre-general report shows it spent $108.70m from 1 to 14 October, including $65.0m to WinSenate and $10.0m to Texas Forever, and ended with $32.72m. Texas Forever has reported $19.40m against Ken Paxton since 1 October.

Senate Leadership Fund (SLF)

SLF's pre-general report shows $88.42m in cash on 14 October and $18.98m raised in the fortnight, none of it from Elon Musk. It has since reported $12.07m against Sherrod Brown in Ohio, and its $2.7m to Plains PAC preceded that committee's first Kansas buy on 25 October.

National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC)

The NRSC's pre-general report shows nothing spent with Ashley Hinson in Iowa, or with its nominees in six other states, from 1 to 14 October, after $5.54m with Hinson in September. It took no new loan and ended the fortnight with $25.20m in cash and $20m of debt.

Written with AI from Lowdown's published reporting. Not individually reviewed by an editor. Editorial standards.