On June 22, 2026, U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan ruled that the Trump administration’s overhaul of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements program, known as SAVE, was unlawful and barred the expanded tool from further use in its current form. The decision follows government changes that enabled bulk checks of more than 60 million voter records and the linking of SAVE to Social Security Administration data. Courts found agencies failed to follow required notice and procedural rules and that the repurposed database risked Americans privacy and voting rights by flagging some citizens as potential noncitizens. The order comes as several states had already run their voter rolls through the revamped SAVE system and as litigation proceeds over related executive orders directing DHS to use federal data to verify voters.
Key Takeaways
- Judge Sparkle Sooknanan issued a 75-page ruling on June 22, 2026, blocking the overhauled SAVE tool from further use in its current configuration.
- More than 60 million voter records were reportedly checked through the revamped SAVE system; about 21,000 records, under 0.04 percent, were flagged as potential noncitizens.
- States including Texas ran full voter lists through SAVE; Texas reported roughly 2,700 individuals flagged in one review.
- The court found the SAVE overhaul violated the Privacy Act, the Social Security Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act by repurposing data without proper statutory authority or notice.
- Plaintiffs including the League of Women Voters and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington argued the system risked unlawful voter purges and privacy harms; the court agreed the agencies acted improperly.
- The federal government can appeal; meanwhile, parts of earlier executive orders directing use of SAVE remain subject to legal challenges.
Background
SAVE was established and run by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services as a case-by-case verification tool to help agencies determine immigration status for benefits eligibility. Historically agencies queried SAVE one individual at a time to verify whether a foreign-born person qualified for government benefits or immigration statuses. Under changes implemented last year, the Department of Homeland Security, with assistance described as coming from DOGE in official materials, reengineered SAVE to accept bulk queries, to include records of U.S.-born citizens, and to draw on Social Security Administration data for the first time.
Those technical and policy shifts enabled states and other actors to run entire voter registries through SAVE rather than checking individual records, a change critics said transformed a narrowly tailored benefits tool into a mass voter-verification database. The Trump administration pressed the expanded SAVE work as part of a broader elections agenda, including a March 31 executive order directing DHS to compile federal data to generate citizen-voter lists. Earlier executive action in March 2025 also sought to require DHS to provide free access to citizenship checks for states; courts previously enjoined parts of those orders but agencies proceeded with system updates.
Main Event
In the lawsuit challenging the overhaul, plaintiffs argued federal agencies retroactively altered SAVE and failed to provide required public notice under the Privacy Act before repurposing millions of Americans private records. Judge Sooknanan found agencies acted without statutory authority and concluded the changes were implemented in a haphazard manner that combined and repurposed data the government itself acknowledged could be unreliable for citizenship verification. The court wrote the federal government had trampled privacy rights in a way that threatened the right to vote and ordered the overhauled SAVE tool disabled pending lawful authorization or corrective procedures.
The ruling noted that some categories of foreign-born U.S. citizens cannot be reliably matched in SAVE and that the system produced false flags when large bulk checks were performed. Plaintiffs documented individual cases, such as Anthony Nel, who acquired U.S. citizenship as a teenager and was flagged as a potential noncitizen after Texas ran its registry through SAVE. Nel was briefly removed from the rolls for failing to respond to a verification letter in time; he later proved his citizenship and was reinstated and voted in recent primaries.
Federal agencies, including USCIS, issued retroactive notices after the lawsuit was filed and received tens of thousands of negative public comments, the court record shows, but did not alter the rollout. The judge concluded that procedural and statutory violations, not just technical errors, made the expansion unlawful. The federal government has the statutory right to appeal the decision to a higher court.
Analysis & Implications
The decision limits a federal attempt to centralize voter eligibility checks using administrative data, raising immediate questions about how states will proceed if they had relied on SAVE results for list maintenance. For states that already ran full registries through SAVE, the ruling may require reexamination of any actions taken based on SAVE flags, including notices or removals that affected registered voters. Election officials will face practical burdens sorting which voter contacts or challenges were grounded in lawful processes versus those stemming from the now-blocked bulk verification system.
Legally, the ruling reasserts statutory guardrails such as the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act that require public notice and reasoned rulemaking when agencies repurpose personal data or change program missions. The court also emphasized limits on executive authority where Congress has not provided explicit authorization, a point that could shape future administrative approaches to election-related data projects. Policymakers who seek a national verification mechanism would likely need clear legislative authorization and robust accuracy safeguards if they hope to avoid similar litigation.
Politically, the case is likely to deepen partisan debate over election integrity and administrative power ahead of upcoming federal elections. Advocates for tougher verification will characterize the ruling as temporary and pledges to appeal are likely to continue the controversy. Voting-rights groups and privacy advocates view the decision as a defensive win for voters who could be wrongly targeted by automated matches and stressed that even small error rates can produce disproportionate harms for naturalized citizens and other groups with atypical records.
Comparison & Data
| Metric | Reported Value |
|---|---|
| Voter records checked through revamped SAVE | More than 60,000,000 |
| Records flagged as potential noncitizens | About 21,000 (less than 0.04%) |
| Individuals flagged in Texas review | More than 2,700 |
Context matters: while a 21,000 count is a small share of 60 million checks, even a fraction of a percent can translate into thousands of affected voters who may be naturalized citizens, dual-status individuals, or those with records that do not match administrative databases. The court highlighted that SAVE was not designed as a universal citizenship validator and that certain citizen categories are not verifiable through the system, underscoring the risk of using the tool for mass voter-list maintenance without corrective measures.
Reactions & Quotes
Advocacy groups that brought the suit welcomed the ruling and framed it as a safeguard for voters and privacy.
Today’s decision is a resounding victory for voters. Efforts to create a federal voter database to facilitate voter purges threaten the fundamental right at the heart of our democracy.
Marcia Johnson, League of Women Voters (plaintiff)
The organizations argued the agencies ignored overwhelming public comment and converted a targeted verification tool into a bulk-check mechanism without legal authority. Legal counsel for plaintiffs noted that the court echoed commenters who warned that the system was unreliable and unlawful.
They just didn’t listen to the American people who spoke out against this plan. The court has now said the system is unlawful and needs to be shut down absent congressional authorization.
Nikhel Sus, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (plaintiff counsel)
The Department of Homeland Security signaled disagreement and indicated it may seek further review while restating a commitment to preventing noncitizen voting. DHS public remarks included social media posts by department officials criticizing the ruling and highlighting the administration’s intent to pursue remedies.
Unconfirmed
- Exact number of states that ran their full voter rolls through the revamped SAVE system has not been publicly verified in a comprehensive, up-to-date list.
- The role and identity of DOGE as described in agency materials has not been independently confirmed in public filings beyond agency references.
- Potential administrative remedies or technical fixes DHS might pursue if the government appeals were not detailed in the court opinion and remain speculative.
Bottom Line
The court ruling on June 22, 2026 halts a major federal attempt to repurpose an immigration verification database for mass voter checks, underscoring legal limits on agency reuse of personal data without statutory authority or required public notice. The decision protects thousands of voters from being wrongly labeled as noncitizens while reaffirming procedural safeguards Congress imposed on administrative action.
Looking ahead, the government may appeal, and lawmakers who favor a national verification mechanism will face pressure to pass clear statutes and build stronger accuracy and transparency safeguards. States and election officials that relied on SAVE outputs will need to review past actions taken on the basis of SAVE flags and consider steps to remediate any voters wrongly affected.
Sources
- NPR — news report on the court ruling and SAVE overhaul (media)
- USCIS SAVE program page — official agency information on SAVE (government)
- League of Women Voters — plaintiff and advocacy organization (advocacy)
- Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington — plaintiff counsel and watchdog group (advocacy)