The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled 6-3 on Friday to permit implementation of President Donald Trump’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (USCIS) streamlined Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program ahead of this year’s midterm elections.
Last year, USCIS Director Joseph Edlow announced upgrades to the SAVE program, which allows states to verify that only American citizens are voting in federal elections. Multiple left-wing organizations sued to stop the updates to the SAVE program, and a lower court blocked its implementation.
SCOTUS granted the Trump administration’s request to stay the lower court’s decision.
“Under the modified SAVE program, a state or local agency seeking to determine an individual’s citizenship status first uploads the individual’s first name, last name, date of birth, or full or partial SSN to the SAVE portal,” the majority writes:
The SAVE program automatically discloses that information to SSA, which runs it through its databases to find a match. SSA then discloses its search results to DHS, including the individual’s full name, date of birth, full SSN, and citizenship status. Finally, the SAVE portal returns a response to the agency, either confirming that the individual is a citizen or requesting that the agency resubmit its query with additional information. 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. [Emphasis added]
…
By prohibiting interference with the disclosure of information regarding citizenship status to DHS— “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law”—Congress necessarily authorized DHS to request and receive that information. Otherwise, agencies, entities, and officials could find themselves in the impossible predicament of either disclosing information consistent with section 1373 but in violation of legislation like the Social Security Act and Privacy Act or withholding that information consistent with those Acts but in violation of section 1373. 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. [Emphasis added]
…
For the foregoing reasons, the application for stay presented to THE CHIEF JUSTICE and by him referred to the Court is granted. The June 22, 2026 order entered by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in case No. 25–cv–3501 is stayed pending the disposition of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such a writ is timely sought. Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court. [Emphasis added]
Justice Jackson wrote the minority’s dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. In her dissent, Jackson argues that American voters will be “disenfranchised” as a result of providing states with a streamlined voter verification system.
“In my view, however, 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,” Jackson writes. “This imbalance, along with the Government’s improbable merits arguments, should have compelled the Court to deny the stay.”
The case is DHS v. League of Women Voters, No. 26A308 in the Supreme Court of the United States.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Email him at [email protected].
Read the full article here