Status as of September 25, 2026. The Supreme Court granted the federal government's application for a stay in Department of Homeland Security v. League of Women Voters, allowing the modified SAVE program to remain in operation while the appeal continues. The order does not resolve the legality of the program on the merits.
The Supreme Court on September 25, 2026, granted the Department of Homeland Security's application for a stay in Department of Homeland Security v. League of Women Voters, No. 26A308. The order stays the effect of a District Court ruling that had set aside and vacated the modified Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements program and related agency notices. The underlying litigation remains pending. [oai_citation:0‡Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/26a308_pok0.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
The District Court had ruled for the plaintiff organizations on their three principal claims and vacated the modified SAVE program. It also denied the government's request for a stay pending appeal. A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit then denied the government's stay request, after which the government sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court.
What changed in the SAVE program
SAVE has existed since 1986 and was originally used by federal, state and local government agencies to verify the citizenship and immigration status of noncitizens applying for public benefits. Historically, the system relied on records maintained by DHS, the Department of Justice and the Department of State.
In March 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14248 directing DHS to develop systems that would allow state and local officials to verify the citizenship of registered voters and people seeking to register. The order also directed the Social Security Administration to make relevant records available to DHS.
DHS launched a modified SAVE program two months later. According to the Supreme Court's description, the new version added access to Social Security Administration records, including Social Security numbers, and allowed state and local authorities to submit bulk queries involving multiple individuals. [oai_citation:1‡Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/26a308_pok0.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
How the modified system works
A state or local agency seeking to verify an individual's citizenship may submit identifying information through the SAVE portal. That information can include a first and last name, date of birth and a full or partial Social Security number.
The information is sent to the Social Security Administration for comparison with its records. SSA then returns matching information to DHS, which can include the individual's name, date of birth, Social Security number and citizenship status. SAVE then provides a response to the requesting agency.
If the system cannot confirm citizenship, the agency may need additional information before making a determination. The litigation centers in part on the government's use and disclosure of this information and on how the modified system affects registered voters whose government records may be incomplete or inaccurate.
The legal challenge
The League of Women Voters, several of its state and local affiliates, the Electronic Privacy Information Center and other plaintiffs challenged the modified program. They argued that the changes violated federal restrictions governing Social Security records, protections in the Privacy Act of 1974 and requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.
The federal government disputed those claims and also challenged the plaintiffs' standing. It argued, among other things, that federal immigration law authorizes the exchange of information relating to citizenship and immigration status and that the modified program was lawful.
Why the Supreme Court granted a stay
The Court concluded that the government had made the showing required for interim relief while the appeal proceeds. The majority said the plaintiffs likely had standing, pointing to a Louisiana voter identified as J. Doe 4 whose Social Security Administration records did not accurately reflect her naturalized citizenship.
At the same time, the Court concluded that the plaintiffs' statutory claims were unlikely to succeed on the merits. Its analysis focused heavily on 8 U.S.C. § 1373 and related provisions enacted in 1996. The Court read those provisions as likely authorizing the federal government to request and receive information concerning citizenship or immigration status despite conflicting disclosure restrictions. [oai_citation:2‡Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/26a308_pok0.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
That conclusion was made in the context of a stay application. It is not a final judgment on the legality of the modified SAVE program.
The dissent
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. The dissent disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the federal statutes and argued that the government had not shown a sufficient likelihood of success to justify emergency relief.
The dissent also emphasized the privacy interests at stake and the risk that inaccurate government records could impose additional burdens on eligible voters.
What the order means now
The modified SAVE program may continue operating while the appeal proceeds.
The District Court's order vacating the modified program and related notices is stayed for now.
The Supreme Court has not issued a final ruling on whether the program complies with the Social Security Act, Privacy Act or Administrative Procedure Act.
The underlying case continues in the lower courts.
The Court also noted an important practical limitation. Federal law generally restricts systematic programs for removing ineligible voters from registration lists during the 90 days before a federal election. The stay therefore does not eliminate every separate statutory restriction that may apply to how states use SAVE data close to an election. [oai_citation:3‡Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/26a308_pok0.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com)