A federal judge in Washington, D.C., refused to pause her June 22 order that struck down a Department of Homeland Security database storing private information of U.S. citizens, finding the government unlikely to win its appeal.

A federal judge has refused to pause her order dismantling a Department of Homeland Security database that held the personal information of U.S. citizens, meaning the June 22 ruling that shut down the expanded system stays in force while the government appeals. Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found that the administration was unlikely to win its appeal and would not suffer irreparable harm without a stay.

The case, League of Women Voters v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, challenges a rebuilt version of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system — long used to check immigration status for benefits, but overhauled last year into a bulk citizenship-checking tool that pulled in Social Security and other federal data. More than 60 million voter records had been run through the revamped system before the court intervened.

The government, Sooknanan wrote, "fall[s] well short of satisfying the high burden needed for a stay pending appeal."

What the Court Ruled in June

On June 22, Sooknanan — a Biden appointee — set aside the modified SAVE system and two System of Records Notices that had authorized its creation and data-sharing. She held that the system violated the Social Security Act by allowing Social Security Administration data to flow to DHS and to SAVE users, a point she said the government had earlier conceded, and that DHS built and revised the system without proper notice or legal authority under the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. The order returns SAVE to its pre-2025 state and bars its use for the expanded voter checks. The judge declined to reach the plaintiffs' constitutional claims, resting the ruling on the statutory violations alone.

Why the Stay Was Denied

Applying the Supreme Court's Nken v. Holder standard — which requires a strong likelihood of success, irreparable injury, and a public interest favoring a pause — Sooknanan found the government met none of them. She noted that DHS raised arguments it had not made in earlier briefing, including on points the court had treated as conceded, writing that a stay motion "is not an avenue to raise new arguments" a party chose not to advance before. She also said the government mischaracterized her June 22 opinion, waited nine days to file its stay motion, then gave the court roughly a day and a half to decide before threatening to bypass the district court and go straight to the D.C. Circuit.

The Dueling Florida Order

The stay fight is tangled with a conflicting ruling. A day before Sooknanan's decision, District Judge T. Kent Wetherell II of the Northern District of Florida — a Trump appointee — ordered DHS to restore SAVE's Social Security number search and bulk-upload features for Florida, Iowa, Indiana, and Ohio, holding that a November 2025 settlement with those states required them. Wetherell wrote that he was not bound by Sooknanan's order and disagreed with it. DHS then argued to Sooknanan that the Florida decree forced it out of compliance; she called the argument "audacious" and noted that the settlement binds only the states party to it, not other SAVE users. With two federal courts issuing incompatible directives, the dispute now appears headed for the appeals courts and potentially the Supreme Court.

The Government's Position

DHS appealed the June 22 ruling to the D.C. Circuit on June 25. The Justice Department, which represents the agency, said it would continue to defend the administration's immigration agenda and DHS's use of SAVE to verify citizenship. In earlier filings, the government argued that federal law — including provisions on data sharing between DHS and the Social Security Administration — authorizes the system and that the overhaul posed no harm to voters' privacy.

What This Means Right Now

  • The expanded SAVE system remains blocked nationwide for voter-citizenship checks under Sooknanan's order, though access for the four settlement states is now contested between the two court rulings.

  • Internal DHS memos cited by the court warned that naturalized citizens were at particular risk of being wrongly flagged — naturalized voters who want certainty should confirm their registration status with local election officials.

  • Because the litigation is moving fast and the two orders conflict, anyone concerned about a citizenship or registration flag should keep records of their status and watch for further appellate rulings.

Factum Immigration will continue to monitor developments closely. If you have questions about citizenship verification, naturalization records, or how these rulings may affect you, our team is here to provide personalized guidance.

This article is based on court filings and reporting from CourtListener, NPR, and other sources. It is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.