The Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump an election-year victory Friday, allowing expanded federal citizenship checks to resume temporarily.
The emergency order lifted restrictions on the administration’s revamped SAVE database as states prepare for November’s midterm elections.
The court’s three liberal justices dissented, warning the system could mistakenly target eligible American voters.
The majority concluded federal law permits the Department of Homeland Security to obtain citizenship information from other government agencies.
It also said Washington has an obligation to respond when states seek help verifying voter eligibility.
“The order below prevents the Federal Government from using the program it believes is best suited to the task.”
The unsigned decision pauses a lower court ruling that had blocked the Trump administration’s expanded use of SAVE.
The program’s name stands for Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, and it was created to help agencies verify eligibility.
Trump’s administration broadened the tool’s search capabilities and promoted it for checking citizenship information against state voter rolls.
At least 67 million registrations have been scanned through the program since its expansion, according to the administration.
The ruling allows willing states to use the system while litigation over its legality continues.
It does not order states to participate or authorize automatic removal of voters identified by the database.
Federal law also restricts systematic voter purges within 90 days of an election, limiting the decision’s immediate effect.
Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows said her state will continue refusing to use the program.
The Democrat said the ruling does not require Maine to alter the way it conducts elections.
DHS general counsel James Percival celebrated the decision as a chance to use government records against illegal voting.
He said the administration had needed an emergency Supreme Court petition to regain access to data for assisting states.
The dispute began after U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan, a Biden appointee, ruled in June that the expanded system violated privacy protections.
She also warned that inaccurate results could lead election officials to remove lawful voters from their rolls.
A federal appeals court left her restrictions in place before the administration sought emergency relief from the justices.
The Supreme Court majority pointed to a 1996 law authorizing DHS access to citizenship and immigration information.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson disagreed, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.
Jackson said privacy protections had long applied to the database and warned that mistakes could disenfranchise eligible citizens.
She argued that even a few wrongful removals could outweigh the government’s claimed harm from waiting.
The challengers called the order profoundly disappointing and vowed to continue fighting for the lower court’s ruling.
In Denton, voter Anthony Nels said his registration was temporarily canceled after SAVE incorrectly identified him as a potential noncitizen.
Nels was born in South Africa but became an American citizen more than a decade before the flag appeared.
He said he had to obtain a replacement passport to address the problem.
Former Arizona election official Stephen Richer, a Republican, said the program could help if used responsibly.
He warned administrators to treat its results as a starting point rather than definitive proof of citizenship.
The administration says checking the rolls helps states enforce the longstanding prohibition against noncitizens voting in federal elections.
Critics say an inaccurate system could burden lawful voters without uncovering widespread illegal ballots.
Georgia identified 20 noncitizens among 8.2 million registered voters ahead of the 2024 presidential election.
Ohio obtained indictments against nine people accused of voting as noncitizens over a decade, among roughly eight million registrants.
Those figures do not settle whether every state has accurate records or whether SAVE’s expanded checks are lawful.
The administration has pursued other changes to election procedures, several of which have faced court challenges, CNN reported.
Friday’s order leaves the underlying lawsuit unresolved, but gives states another tool as the midterm elections approach.
This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
