The US Supreme Court lets the SAVE citizenship check proceed for now
The US Supreme Court on Friday paused a lower-court order that had blocked the expanded SAVE database, which states can use to check whether registered voters are citizens. CBS News reported a 6-3 vote. The order does not lift the federal bar on systematic voter-roll purges in the 90 days before an election. The midterm election is on 3 November.
Geopolitics··Night
A 6-3 stay puts the expanded database back in use
The Supreme Court on Friday sided with the Trump administration and paused a district-court order that had kept the Department of Homeland Security from using its expanded Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements database, known as SAVE. CBS News reported the vote as 6-3. NBC News reported the same emergency stay: the justices let the administration use the expanded citizenship database while the case continues. The database is the system states and localities can query to check the citizenship of registered voters.[1], [2]
The 90-day purge bar stays in place
CBS News reported that the stay does not lift the federal rule against systematic purges of voter rolls in the 90 days before an election. NBC News likewise reported that the National Voter Registration Act still bars broad purges in the weeks before an election, which limits what the stay can change before this year's vote. The election is on 3 November.[1], [2]
The lower courts had found the expansion likely unlawful
CBS News reported that the paused order came from Judge Sparkle Sooknanan in June, and that the unsigned Supreme Court opinion said the voting-rights groups' claims likely lack merit. NBC News reported that the lower courts had found the administration's changes likely unlawful, and that the government told the Court the block kept it from answering state requests to verify citizenship. SAVE itself dates to 1986, when Congress built it so agencies could check immigration status for benefits; citizenship checks for voters were added after a March 2025 executive order. The court's conservatives made up the 6-3 majority. States may still make individualized queries. In dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that the harm of burdening even a few lawful voters outweighs the harm the government claims from being blocked. The League of Women Voters leads the challengers.[1], [2]
