Federal Judge Blocks DHS from Using SAVE Database for Voter Citizenship Verification

In a significant legal setback, a federal judge has ruled that the Department of Homeland Security's expansion of its SAVE database violated federal privacy and administrative laws, while the Justice Department continues to face resistance from multiple states over demands for voter and public assistance data.

Court Ruling on the SAVE Database

On Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan in Washington, D.C., granted a motion for summary judgment that blocks DHS from using the modified Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system to remove voters from registration rolls. The ruling vacated modifications made to the SAVE system in 2025 and ordered DHS to revert the system to its previous state.

Legal Basis for the Ruling

The court found that the modifications to the SAVE system violated the Social Security Act's prohibition on disclosing social security numbers, provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

The judge stated that the changes were "contrary to law, arbitrary and capricious, in excess of statutory authority, and without observance of procedure required by law."

The court also noted that the system contained inaccuracies that risked incorrectly flagging eligible citizens as non-citizens, potentially leading to improper removal of voters from rolls.

Background of the SAVE System Expansion

The SAVE database was originally created under immigration law to help government agencies verify an individual's immigration status or citizenship for the purpose of determining eligibility for public benefits. In 2025, following an executive order from President Donald Trump, DHS overhauled the system to allow state and local election officials to use it for checking the citizenship status of registered voters.

The expansion integrated data from immigration records, Social Security records, and U.S. passport data. According to court documents, DHS implemented these changes without first filing required public notices under the Privacy Act and the APA. A notice under the Privacy Act was filed in late October after the first hearing in the lawsuit.

Usage and Accuracy of the System

At least 25 states have used the upgraded SAVE system since April 2025, scanning over 67 million voter registrations. DHS reported that from April 2025 onward, the system flagged 21,000 potential non-citizens out of 60 million names submitted by states—a rate of 0.00035%. The agency's guidelines require states to conduct additional investigations to confirm whether flagged voters are non-citizens.

State and local officials have reported instances where the system flagged eligible voters. In Travis County, Texas, for example, a review of data found that 11 out of 97 voters initially flagged as potential non-citizens had already provided proof of citizenship when registering to vote through the state driver's license division.

Parties Involved in the Lawsuit

The League of Women Voters led a coalition of voting and privacy advocates in the lawsuit against DHS, the Social Security Administration (SSA), and other federal actors. The plaintiffs were represented by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), Fair Elections Center, and Democracy Forward.

Implications and Next Steps

The ruling prevents state election officials from further using the modified SAVE system to check registration rolls. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has previously sought to require all states to submit records for database testing. The DOJ has filed lawsuits against 30 states and Washington, D.C., related to voter data demands. As of recent reports, the DOJ has lost nine such cases.

The administration may appeal the ruling to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Justice Department's Efforts to Obtain Voter and Public Assistance Data

The DOJ, under the leadership of Attorney General Pam Bondi, has pursued access to voter registration records and public assistance data from multiple states. These efforts have encountered resistance from both Democratic and Republican state officials.

Requests for Voter Registration Data

The DOJ has sent letters to secretaries of state and governors in numerous states requesting non-public voter registration data, which can include social security numbers, driver's license numbers, full birth dates, and current addresses. The department states that it requires this data to enforce federal election laws and assist states in "cleaning" their voter rolls of ineligible voters.

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, head of the DOJ Civil Rights Division, has led these data demands. The DOJ has drafted a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for states, which would require states to remove voters deemed ineligible by the DOJ within 45 days.

State Resistance

Legal challenges to the DOJ's data demands have been unsuccessful for the department. No court has upheld the DOJ's argument that it is entitled to the requested data under federal law. A federal judge in California dismissed a DOJ lawsuit against that state, and judges in Oregon and Georgia have also dismissed similar cases.

Democratic State Responses

Officials in states led by Democratic governors have resisted the DOJ's demands. Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon has refused to provide the data, citing state and federal privacy laws. Simon described the request as "deeply disturbing" and stated that federal law does not grant the authority to obtain this private data. Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes also declined.

Republican State Responses

At least six Republican-led state election offices have refused the DOJ's request for non-public voter data. West Virginia Secretary of State Kris Warner stated that the DOJ would need to pay for public voter rolls and would not receive personal information. Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson provided data but refused to sign the proposed MOU, emphasizing that voter roll maintenance should be a state-level responsibility. Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins stated his intent not to produce data without a court order.

Republican officials cited concerns that the requests conflicted with state laws prohibiting the disclosure of sensitive voter information, questioned the administration's reasons for seeking the data, and objected to the federal government leading the removal of ineligible voters.

Compliance Status

As of recent reports, only two states—Alaska and Texas—have signed the proposed MOU. About a dozen more states are providing data without entering into the agreement. The DOJ has indicated that it may prepare additional lawsuits against non-compliant states.

Requests for Public Assistance Data

Attorney General Bondi sent a letter to Minnesota Governor Tim Walz requesting access to records related to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The letter also urged Minnesota to eliminate policies the administration calls "sanctuary policies" and to increase cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Bondi stated these measures would "help bring back law and order to Minnesota."

Minnesota officials rejected the request. Governor Walz's office and Secretary of State Simon characterized the request as an attempt to coerce the state. Minnesota is one of over 20 states that has not complied with a U.S. Department of Agriculture demand to provide personal information of SNAP benefit applicants or recipients. A federal judge in California has indicated these states are likely to succeed in their claim that the demand is unlawful.

Broader Administration Initiatives on Voter Fraud and Election Integrity

The Trump administration has undertaken several actions targeting alleged voter fraud under the banner of "election integrity."

Executive Action and Legal Frameworks

President Trump signed an executive order focusing on citizenship data and mail ballots. Critics of the order argue it appears to facilitate the creation of a national voter registration list, despite the Constitution's directive that states are the primary administrators of elections. The DOJ appointed Dan Bishop, the U.S. attorney for the Middle District of North Carolina, to work on election issues, including examining voter registration data for potential noncitizen voters.

Legislative Efforts

The Trump-backed SAVE America Act proposes to mandate that states periodically run their full voter lists through the DHS citizenship verification system.

Placement of Officials

Individuals associated with election skepticism have been placed in roles across the administration to investigate voter fraud. Heather Honey, an election skeptic working at DHS, reportedly proposed conditioning homeland security grants on states sharing voter data. This measure had not been implemented as of recent reports.

DOJ Finalized Agreement with DHS

The Justice Department finalized an agreement with DHS to provide DHS with sensitive voter-roll data obtained from states. This data will be cross-referenced with the SAVE citizenship verification program.

Potential for Disenfranchisement and Election Challenges

Critics of the administration's efforts have warned that the data collection and analysis could result in blocking eligible Americans from voting and generate skepticism about the legitimacy of future elections.

Concerns have been raised that the methods for sorting and searching data could be used to support specific narratives.

Election experts have questioned the federal government's capacity and legal authority to assemble a complete list of eligible voters using internal data. Previous smaller-scale attempts to verify voter eligibility using immigration data have incorrectly flagged citizens as noncitizens.