On Friday, September 25, the Supreme Court let the Department of Homeland Security's SAVE program go back to checking registered voters' citizenship against Social Security records, five and a half weeks before the November 3 general election.

In an unsigned opinion in No. 26A308, Department of Homeland Security v. League of Women Voters, the Court stayed a June 22 order of the federal district court in Washington, D.C. (No. 25-cv-3501) that had set aside the modified Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements program, known as SAVE. Justice Jackson, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, dissented.

This is a stay, not a decision on the merits. It lasts while the government's appeal runs in the D.C. Circuit and through any petition to the Supreme Court.

What the modified program does

SAVE began in 1986 as a check on noncitizens applying for public benefits. In March 2025, Executive Order 14248 directed DHS to let state and local authorities verify registered voters' citizenship and directed the Social Security Administration to make its records available to DHS. Two months later, the majority writes, DHS launched a modified program with two changes: checks against SSA records, including Social Security numbers, and bulk searches of many people at once.

A state or local agency uploads a person's first name, last name, date of birth, or full or partial Social Security number. SAVE passes it to SSA, SSA returns its results to DHS, and the agency gets back either a confirmation of citizenship or a request to resubmit. Then:

If the modified SAVE program is unable to confirm that an individual is a citizen, the agency is required to contact the individual and request that he provide proof of citizenship to register or remain registered to vote.

The dissent adds that the SSA file now connected to SAVE, called NUMIDENT, covers natural-born citizens as well as naturalized citizens and noncitizens. And on voter verification, citing the government's own application: "Twenty-seven States currently use SAVE for that purpose."

Why the majority granted the stay

The majority first accepted that the challengers could sue, relying on the kind of voter the case is about: a member registered in Louisiana, a state that used the modified program. "She has demonstrated that SSA records do not accurately reflect that she is now a naturalized citizen." The dissent agrees on standing in a footnote.

Then the merits: "Although the plaintiff organizations likely have standing, their claims likely lack merit."

The reason is 8 U.S.C. 1373, from a 1996 immigration law. Its first two subsections bar any official or agency, notwithstanding any other law, from prohibiting or restricting the exchange of citizenship information with DHS. The majority reads that as authority for DHS to request and receive the information, sparing officials a choice between section 1373 and the Social Security Act and Privacy Act. "It is improbable that Congress intended to place officials in such a bind when it passed IIRIRA, so section 1373 likely supersedes restrictions on disclosure elsewhere in the Code." A third subsection, requiring DHS to answer state and local citizenship inquiries, "appears to contemplate an information-sharing regime like the modified SAVE program."

On harm, the majority said the district court's order "prevents the Federal Government from using the program it believes is best suited to the task."

The challengers argued the government would suffer no irreparable harm because the National Voter Registration Act requires states to finish any program to systematically remove ineligible voters no later than 90 days before a federal election. The majority agreed in part: "To be sure, that moratorium limits the potential impact of staying the District Court's order in this case." But:

Still, all agree that the order prevents the Federal Government from using the modified SAVE program to conduct individualized inquiries, which are permitted under federal law during this period.

In a footnote the Court said it will consider the scope of the 90-day rule in Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota, No. 25-1017, which asks about programs to cancel noncitizens' registrations inside that window. "The parties in this case do not ask us to address that question and have not briefed it, and we do not need to decide it here." That case is set for argument on Tuesday, December 8, 2026, after the election.

The dissent

Justice Jackson wrote that the Court acted without full briefing or oral argument, "rendering questionable interim rulings about two statutory provisions it has never before interpreted." In her words: "The Court thus misuses its equitable powers."

She reads section 1373 as protecting lawful exchanges from interference, not as overriding privacy laws: "These provisions do not affirmatively grant any power." When a statute restricts disclosure, she wrote, it is the law and not an official doing the restricting. She also cited the law's history and a 1999 Office of Legal Counsel opinion. The majority's footnote reply: "But the distinction the dissent draws between laws and those tasked with enforcing them is illusory."

On harm, she wrote that "the Government's purported harm is substantially mitigated by its ability to use the pre-2025 version of SAVE", and that the majority weighed only one side, "the judicial equivalent of expecting a seesaw with weight applied on only one side to work properly." She recounted the district court's finding that in Texas one member of the challenging groups "had her voter registration revoked without her knowledge," and two more "had to provide proof of citizenship to maintain registered voter status."

Both opinions land on the same near-term picture. The dissent expects that "the per curiam 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." It differs on the weight: "the harm caused by burdening or disenfranchising even a few lawful voters outweighs the nonexistent harm that the Government experiences" when stopped from doing something it likely lacks authority to do.

What was already running

The district court docket shows the program was not fully off before Friday. A July 10 declaration from SSA's general counsel says SSA disabled the SAVE data connection with DHS on June 23. Apart from three transactions processed by mistake on July 6, it stayed disabled until July 9, "when SSA reactivated the connection for use by DHS USCIS solely for the four Plaintiff States subject to the Florida Order of July 7, 2026". That order came in a separate case, Florida v. DHS, and a government filing identifies the four as Florida, Ohio, Iowa and Indiana. The stay lifts the June 22 order's barrier for other states while the appeal proceeds.

A September 14 government notice adds that DHS also queried SSA data through that connection for law-enforcement investigations, which it says are not SAVE requests and do not violate the court's order; the plaintiffs' questions about it were pending as of September 23. Neither Supreme Court opinion mentions the Florida arrangement or these queries.

What a reader can do

November 3, 2026 is the general election. A request to prove citizenship is the step that follows an unconfirmed match, and the dissent notes a state "might strike the voter from the rolls if she fails to timely do so". Answer any such request within its deadline.
Naturalized citizens: the case turns on SSA records that still show an older status. SSA's page says to update it by applying online for a replacement card, booking an appointment in the application, and bringing proof of identity and new status. It does not say how fast SAVE sees the change.
Check your registration with your state or local election office.
Watch the D.C. Circuit appeal, No. 26-5243, and the December 8 argument in No. 25-1017.

What the record does not say

No count. Neither opinion says how many voters in all have been flagged, asked for proof, or removed, or how many SSA records are out of date.
No state list. The 27-state figure is the government's, as the dissent cites it. Neither opinion names the states that will run checks.
Not whether the connection is back on everywhere. No filing this desk read says whether DHS and SSA reopened it to all SAVE users after September 25.
Secondhand findings. The Texas instances are district court findings as the dissent recounts them. This desk did not read that court's opinion, the D.C. Circuit's order, the parties' briefs, or the Florida order.