Department of Homeland Security v. League of Women Voters
Decision
The Supreme Court stayed a lower court order that had blocked the federal government from using a modified voter-verification program involving Social Security Administration records.
The Supreme Court allowed the Department of Homeland Security to resume using a modified program that allows state and local authorities to verify voter citizenship using Social Security records.
Plain-English summary generated by AI from the Court's published opinion on September 25, 2026. Always read the official opinion for the controlling text.
Key Takeaways
- 01The federal government may use Social Security Administration records for voter citizenship verification while the appeal is pending.
- 02A 1996 federal law likely overrides privacy restrictions in other statutes regarding the sharing of citizenship information with immigration authorities.
- 03The Court did not strike down the privacy laws but found they were likely superseded by the specific immigration statute in this context.
Inside the Court
- Opinion by
- Per Curiam
- Dissent
- JacksonSotomayorKagan
Why It Matters
The Court found that a 1996 immigration law likely allows federal agencies to share citizenship data despite privacy restrictions found in other federal statutes.
Who Is Affected?
State and local election officials
These officials may use the modified SAVE portal to conduct bulk searches of voter citizenship status.
Naturalized citizens
Individuals whose citizenship status is not updated in Social Security records may be asked to provide additional proof to remain registered to vote.
Federal agencies
The Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration can continue their data-sharing partnership while the appeal proceeds.
What Happened?
In 2025, an Executive Order directed the Social Security Administration to share citizenship records with the Department of Homeland Security to help states verify voter eligibility. The Department modified its SAVE program to allow bulk searches and the use of social security numbers for these checks. Several organizations sued, alleging the changes violated privacy protections and administrative rules. The District Court and the D.C. Circuit blocked the program, prompting the federal government to seek a stay from the Supreme Court.
Legal Question
Does federal law authorize the Department of Homeland Security to request and receive citizenship information from the Social Security Administration notwithstanding privacy restrictions in other statutes?
Why the Court Ruled This Way
In a per curiam opinion, the Court granted the government's application for a stay, effectively allowing the modified SAVE program to proceed during the appeals process. The Court held that the government established a fair prospect of success because 8 U.S.C. §1373 contains 'notwithstanding' clauses that likely supersede disclosure restrictions in the Social Security Act and the Privacy Act. The Court reasoned that by prohibiting any entity from restricting the exchange of citizenship information with federal immigration authorities, Congress necessarily authorized those authorities to receive the data. The Court also found that the government would face irreparable harm if prevented from using its preferred method to assist states with voter verification. The Court did not reach a final decision on the underlying merits but focused on the requirements for a stay.
Arguments in Favor
The 1996 immigration law explicitly prevents any person or agency from restricting the exchange of citizenship information with federal authorities, regardless of other laws. This authority is necessary to ensure the federal government can fulfill its obligation to help states verify the citizenship status of individuals on their voter rolls.
Arguments Against
Critics argue that the 1996 law does not override specific privacy statutes that require confidentiality for social security records and mandate public notice before changes to data systems. They also express concern that using outdated federal records could result in the removal of lawful, naturalized citizens from voter registration lists.
Timeline
March 2025
President Trump signed Executive Order 14248.
The order directed federal agencies to establish systems for states to verify the citizenship status of registered voters.
May 2025
Department of Homeland Security launched the modified SAVE program.
The program was updated to include Social Security Administration records and bulk search capabilities.
The District Court for the District of Columbia vacated the program modifications.
The court found the program violated the Social Security Act, the Privacy Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act.
September 2026
The Supreme Court granted a stay of the lower court's order.
The decision allows the federal government to use the modified program while the legal challenge continues.
What This Means for Everyday Americans
State election offices can now use a broader federal database to check if registered voters are U.S. citizens. For most voters, this process happens behind the scenes and requires no action. However, if federal records have not been updated to show a person's naturalization, that individual might receive a request from their local election office to provide proof of citizenship. The Court's ruling means these checks can continue using Social Security data even while the lawsuits about privacy and procedure are still being decided in lower courts.
What Happens Next?
The case now returns to the D.C. Circuit for a full review of the appeal on the merits. The modified SAVE program will remain in effect while that appeal, and any subsequent petition to the Supreme Court, is resolved. The Court is also expected to address the scope of voter roll maintenance timelines in a separate case, Mi Familia Vota.
Explain It Like I'm 12
The Supreme Court said the government can keep using a new system to check if voters are U.S. citizens. This system uses Social Security records to help states see who is allowed to vote. Some groups sued because they were worried about privacy and argued the government didn't follow the right rules when setting it up. The Supreme Court decided that a specific law from 1996 allows this kind of information sharing even if other privacy laws exist. Now, the government can use this tool while the case continues to be argued in other courts.
Broader Context
The decision highlights the Court's interpretation of 'notwithstanding' clauses, which are used by Congress to signal that a specific statute should take precedence over conflicting laws. It also reflects the Court's willingness to intervene when lower courts block federal programs during the primary stages of litigation.
Key Players
Department of Homeland Security
The petitioner that manages the SAVE program and sought to stay the lower court order.
League of Women Voters
The respondent organization that challenged the legality of the program modifications.
Social Security Administration
The federal agency directed to share its records with immigration authorities for voter verification.
Justice Jackson
Authored a dissenting opinion joined by Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan.