Status as of October 12, 2026. On October 9, Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia set aside the Justice Department's Voter List Maintenance Policy in Common Cause v. U.S. Department of Justice, No. 1:26-cv-01352. The court found the policy exceeded DOJ's statutory authority, violated federal privacy requirements and disregarded risks that citizenship checks would wrongly flag U.S. citizens. The judgment concerns this DOJ policy, not a general shutdown of USCIS's SAVE database.
A federal judge has invalidated a Justice Department program that sought complete voter-registration lists from states, checked those records against federal citizenship information and asked states to remove people the government identified as potentially ineligible. The October 9 ruling followed litigation by the voting-rights organization Common Cause and individual voters.
In a 78-page opinion, Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan concluded that the administration had not established statutory authority to collect unredacted statewide voter lists for the program. The court also found violations of the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. It granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, rejected the government's cross-motion and vacated the policy.
What the Justice Department's policy did
The challenged Voter List Maintenance Policy was implemented through the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. According to the court's findings, officials requested states' unredacted voter-registration files, shared records with other federal agencies, used the Department of Homeland Security's Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system to assess citizenship information, and sought changes to state voter rolls based on the results.
SAVE is administered by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). It began as an immigration-status verification service for authorized agencies and was modified in 2025 to incorporate Social Security Administration records, including citizenship information. That additional data became central to the dispute because records associated with a Social Security number may not reflect citizenship acquired after the number was issued.
DOJ argued that federal election statutes authorized investigations into the accuracy of state voter lists. The judge rejected the government's interpretation of the 1960 Civil Rights Act, the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act as authority for this sweeping collection-and-sharing policy.
Why the judge found the policy unlawful
The decision identified several independent defects. First, DOJ had not shown that Congress authorized its nationwide demands for unredacted voter lists. Second, the court found the program arbitrary and capricious because it failed to grapple with the known possibility that its citizenship checks would identify eligible U.S. citizens as noncitizens.
The judge also ruled that DOJ had violated Privacy Act requirements governing the collection, disclosure and maintenance of personal information. The department had used a federal record system without issuing the public notices needed for this new collection and use of voter data. The opinion examined the disclosure of records to agencies and contractors, along with requirements for data accuracy and records associated with protected First Amendment activity.
The ruling did not merely find a defect in one state's agreement or in one person's record. The court set aside the policy itself under the Administrative Procedure Act. Its opinion did not decide that every individual voter-roll inquiry by federal officials is forbidden; the holding addresses the program and record-sharing practices described in the administrative record.
Why errors involving naturalized citizens mattered
The plaintiffs included citizens whose voter registrations had been affected by inaccurate records. The opinion describes Anthony Nel, a citizen who acquired nationality through a parent, and a naturalized citizen identified as Bailey Doe. Both were registered Texas voters whose registrations were cancelled after the modified SAVE system failed to confirm their citizenship, according to the court's account of the evidence.
Such errors can arise when a person was recorded as a noncitizen when first issued a Social Security number and later became a U.S. citizen. The court found that the Justice Department had not adequately considered the consequences of using those records to tell states that eligible voters might need to be removed.
The court treated this risk as more than speculation. Its opinion pointed to actual registration cancellations and to agreements under which state officials would respond to the federal government's eligibility determinations. Those examples helped establish the plaintiffs' standing and informed the judge's analysis of the policy's flaws.
What the order changes, and what remains unresolved
The final ruling vacates DOJ's Voter List Maintenance Policy. It does not, by itself, order that all voter information previously collected be deleted or returned. The judge declined to resolve whether additional injunctive relief was warranted after setting the policy aside. The case's appealable final order leaves open the possibility of appellate proceedings.
The litigation is distinct from DHS v. League of Women Voters, concerning modifications to the SAVE database. In September, the Supreme Court stayed an earlier district-court order in that separate case. Judge Sooknanan expressly noted that the parties in Common Cause did not argue that the Supreme Court stay controlled the legality of DOJ's voter-list policy. The two rulings should not be described as cancelling each other out.
The practical significance is greatest for citizens who obtained citizenship after an earlier federal record had classified them as noncitizens, as well as for states asked to act on federal citizenship-check results. The judgment does not create a new immigration benefit, change naturalization requirements or determine anyone's citizenship status.
Frequently asked questions
Did the October 9 ruling shut down the SAVE program?
No. The order vacated the Justice Department's Voter List Maintenance Policy, which used state voter files and SAVE results to press states to remove voters. It did not itself disable the SAVE system or decide every other use of it.
Why were naturalized citizens central to the case?
The court found evidence that citizenship information used in SAVE could remain outdated after a person acquired U.S. citizenship. Its opinion identified voters in Texas whose registrations had been cancelled after inaccurate citizenship checks.
Is this the same as the Supreme Court's September SAVE order?
No. The Supreme Court's September stay concerned an earlier district-court order against modifications to the SAVE system in separate litigation. The October 9 judgment addressed DOJ's voter-list maintenance policy; the district judge said the parties did not contend that the Supreme Court stay controlled this case.
Official sources
Disclaimer: Factum Immigration provides general information, not legal advice. For guidance on an individual case, consult a licensed immigration attorney.