Supreme Court Allows Modified Voter Verification Database Use

Why it matters locally: The Supreme Court's decision to allow the use of a modified voter verification database means state and local election officials in Missouri may utilize this system to verify voter citizenship, potentially impacting how voter rolls are maintained across the state.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday cleared the way for the Trump administration to implement a modified centralized database for verifying voter citizenship. In an unsigned, seven-page opinion issued just 39 days before the November 3, 2026, election, the justices paused a federal judge's ruling in Washington, D.C., that had prohibited the government from using the system due to alleged violations of federal privacy laws. The majority opinion stated the lower court's order "inhibits the Federal Government’s efforts to assist state and local agencies in the proper administration of the midterm elections." Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Jackson described Friday's decision as "questionable interim ruling[] about two statutory provisions" that the Supreme Court "has never before interpreted." She argued that the majority "focuses only on the harms the Government will purportedly suffer absent a stay, disregarding the harms that the" use of the modified database "has caused, and will likely continue to cause, to lawful voters." The dispute originated in late March when President Donald Trump issued an executive order. This order directed the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Social Security Administration (SSA) to establish systems. These systems would allow state and local governments to verify voters' citizenship and immigration status. Subsequently, these agencies modified the DHS's Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database. They included records of U.S.-born citizens, integrated access to Social Security numbers, and enabled multiple simultaneous searches. The League of Women Voters and the Electronic Privacy Information Center filed a lawsuit in federal court in Washington, challenging the changes to the SAVE system. On June 22, U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan determined the modified SAVE system violated federal privacy laws, the Social Security Act, and federal administrative agency laws. She then prohibited the government from using it. Sooknanan wrote that "the federal government has knowingly trampled on the privacy rights of American citizens in a manner that threatens the sacred right to vote." She added that "states have partnered with the federal government to access the database and are actively removing United States citizens from voter rolls based on inaccurate information." On September 4, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected the government's request to pause Sooknanan's order during its appeal. The court, however, fast-tracked the appeal and instructed litigants to propose a briefing schedule. The litigants later agreed to postpone any briefing in that court pending the Supreme Court's action on the Trump administration's emergency appeal. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer appealed to the Supreme Court on September 8. He asked the justices to halt Sooknanan's ruling while litigation continued. Sauer described Sooknanan's decision as an "indefensible order that threatens the integrity of upcoming elections by vacating the federal government’s authority to internally use Social Security data when fulfilling its duty to respond to requests by States to verify the citizenship of individuals for voting and other purposes." He also contended Sooknanan lacked the authority to issue her order because the challengers did not have legal standing to sue. Sauer argued the federal government did not cause any injury to the challengers or their members, as the SAVE system "merely notifies the States whether the federal government can confirm citizenship." Lawyers for the League of Women Voters and the Electronic Privacy Information Center requested on September 15 that the justices maintain Sooknanan's ruling. Nikhel Sus, representing the challengers, argued that "the government has recklessly created an error-laden master citizenship database that endangers millions of Americans’ privacy and voting rights." The groups also asserted they possessed legal standing to sue, countering the government's argument. Sus cited Supreme Court cases, stating a plaintiff has standing if "'third parties will likely react' to the government [action] 'in predictable ways' that will likely cause . . . the plaintiff’s injury.'" Sus continued, "'additional voter verification and potential voter disenfranchisement is 'the predictable effect of' the federal government incorrectly informing a state that an individual may be ineligible to vote.'" He noted, "the government concedes this is the intended effect." Sus also argued that if a federal immigration law superseded other federal laws, such as the Social Security Act or the Privacy Act, preventing DHS from obtaining or disclosing information, it would grant DHS "unlimited power to vacuum up millions of Americans’ sensitive information from SSA (or any other agency) and disclose it in bulk to states however it wants." In its Friday opinion, the majority acknowledged the groups had standing to pursue their claim. The opinion noted one group member, registered to vote in Louisiana, uses the modified SAVE system. Because Social Security records did not identify her as a naturalized citizen, she would need to provide additional proof of U.S. citizenship. This requirement constituted an injury that granted her, and by extension the groups, a right to sue. The majority, however, concluded the challengers were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claims. Courts consider this a factor when deciding whether to grant temporary relief. The majority rejected the challengers' argument that the modified SAVE system violated the Social Security Act, the Privacy Act, and federal administrative agency law. It explained that a 1996 federal immigration law "Congress … separately and expressly authorized DHS to request and receive information relating to citizenship and immigration status from other agencies, including SSA." The Supreme Court also "often granted" review, another factor in awarding emergency relief, "where a lower court has set aside an important federal program." The majority suggested the modified SAVE system falls into this category. The majority further stated the federal government would experience permanent harm if the district court's order remained in place. Under federal immigration law, the majority reasoned, "the Federal Government has an obligation to respond to requests from state and local election officials seeking to verify the citizenship of voters. The order below prevents the Federal Government from using the program it believes is best suited to the task." The majority acknowledged that the National Voter Registration Act prohibits state and local governments from systematically removing voters from election rolls during the 90 days before federal elections. The majority wrote, "To be sure, that moratorium limits the potential impact of staying" Sooknanan’s order. However, if the order remained, the majority emphasized, state and local governments could not "conduct *individualized* inquiries, which are permitted under federal law during this period." Jackson disagreed with the majority's interpretation of federal immigration law as authorizing the changes to the SAVE system and "displac[ing] any other statutory restrictions on the disclosure of citizenship information." She stated the government had not previously relied on this interpretation. She noted that in other recent cases, the Supreme Court required a "clear statement" from Congress, not present in the current provision, for an agency to achieve such a "transformative expansion in its regulatory authority." Jackson conceded the majority's opinion "will likely have minimal short-term impact, as States will at most conduct individualized voter-roll maintenance using the modified SAVE system ahead of the November elections." However, she continued, "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."