US Supreme Court Permits Use of Federal Voter Eligibility Database

By the Editorial Team · Sunday, September 27, 2026

The U.S. Supreme Court lifted a lower court’s injunction, allowing states to access the Department of Homeland Security’s SAVE database to verify voter eligibility ahead of the November midterms. While this temporarily advances Trump-era efforts to prevent noncitizen voting, participation is voluntary and experts caution that data inaccuracies and legal limits on voter roll purges may minimize its overall impact.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday lifted restrictions on the use of a federal voter eligibility database, allowing states to employ the Department of Homeland Security’s Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program in verifying voter eligibility ahead of the November midterm elections. The decision marks a temporary legal victory for the Trump administration’s efforts to prevent noncitizen voting. Three liberal-leaning justices dissented from the order.

The emergency ruling reverses a June decision by U.S. District Court Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan, who had blocked the use of the Trump administration’s updated version of SAVE, ruling that it violated privacy rights and risked erroneously removing eligible voters from registration lists. The Supreme Court’s action puts that injunction on hold, permitting states to access the federal database.

SAVE, a DHS program designed to verify immigration status, has been criticized for its use of sensitive personal information and its potential to misidentify lawful voters as noncitizens. Participation by states remains voluntary, which election law experts say limits the ruling’s practical effects on upcoming elections. Existing federal law also restricts states from conducting widespread voter roll purges within 90 days of an election.

Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, a Democrat who has declined to use SAVE, stated the ruling would not change election procedures in her state. David Becker, head of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, noted that even DHS has acknowledged imperfections in the data, underscoring concerns about the database’s reliability.

Plaintiffs opposing the program called the Supreme Court’s decision “profoundly disappointing,” warning that it exposes millions of voters to the risk of being unfairly targeted by what they described as an unreliable purge tool.

Responding to the ruling, James Percival, general counsel for DHS, emphasized on social media that the department had resorted to filing an emergency petition with the Supreme Court simply to use government data aimed at preventing illegal voting by noncitizens.

At the time of publication, the White House had not issued a comment on the Supreme Court’s order.

This article was reported by synthesizing coverage from multiple independent news outlets to present a balanced, unbiased account. Read about our editorial standards. Spotted an error? Let us know.