The Supreme Court on Friday lifted a nationwide block on a federal voter-eligibility database that has already screened at least 67 million registrations, allowing state election officials to resume using the expanded system weeks before the November midterms.

The unsigned, 6-3 order in Department of Homeland Security v. League of Women Voters stays a lower-court judgment while the administration appeals. It does not decide the case on the merits, and its immediate effect is narrower than the political debate around it: federal law generally bars systematic voter-roll removals within 90 days of a federal election.

Still, the ruling gives President Donald Trump a significant legal victory in his effort to expand the federal role in election administration. States may again use the modified Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements program, or SAVE, to check individual voters, while the broader dispute over privacy, statutory authority and database accuracy continues.

What the ruling changes

The court paused a June decision by U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan that vacated the expanded SAVE program. A divided federal appeals panel had left her ruling in place, finding that the government had not justified emergency relief. The Supreme Court concluded that federal immigration law gives the Department of Homeland Security authority to receive citizenship information from other agencies and obligates it to respond when state or local officials seek verification.

That conclusion lets the government restart the modified system during the appeal. But the ruling does not require any state to participate, and election administration remains primarily a state responsibility. Maine, for example, has declined to use SAVE. Twenty-five states, most led by Republicans, have submitted voter rolls through the system, according to Votebeat.

How SAVE became a voter tool

SAVE began as an immigration-status service for agencies deciding eligibility for public benefits. The Trump administration changed its design in 2025 by connecting it to Social Security Administration records and enabling bulk searches. An election office can now submit a name, date of birth and full or partial Social Security number; the system then checks multiple federal databases and returns a citizenship result or asks for more information.

The administration argues that the change gives states a practical way to enforce the citizenship requirement for federal voting. The government’s own guidance says an inconclusive response is not proof that a person is ineligible and that officials must follow applicable law before changing a registration. Critics counter that local offices may treat an inconclusive or outdated record as evidence against a voter, shifting the burden to citizens to prove eligibility.

Accuracy and privacy remain contested

The case arose after the League of Women Voters, the Electronic Privacy Information Center and individual voters challenged the overhaul. They said linking Social Security data to SAVE violated federal privacy protections and exposed naturalized citizens to wrongful challenges because citizenship fields can lag behind a person’s actual status. Sooknanan agreed, finding violations of the Social Security Act, Privacy Act and Administrative Procedure Act.

The practical concern is not hypothetical. In Travis County, Texas, officials investigated 97 registrations flagged as apparent noncitizens and found that at least 10 percent, and possibly 21 percent, belonged to citizens, according to the Associated Press. Nevada officials separately reported that all 185 people on a federal list of supposed noncitizens were citizens after state records were checked.

The administration says those examples show why verification should continue rather than why the tool should be barred. SAVE is intended to prompt follow-up, not automatically cancel a registration, and citizenship checks can also confirm eligibility. That distinction is important because a database match is an investigative lead, not a final adjudication of a voter’s rights.

Why November impact is limited

The National Voter Registration Act limits any program whose purpose is systematically removing ineligible voters during the final 90 days before a federal election. The official statute preserves individualized removals for reasons including death, criminal conviction where state law applies, or a registrant’s request, but it blocks broad last-minute list maintenance.

The Supreme Court acknowledged that restriction, saying it reduces the system’s near-term reach while leaving room for individualized inquiries. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, argued in dissent that this makes the government’s claimed emergency harm weak. She also emphasized evidence that lawful voters had already been canceled or forced to document citizenship.

The rarity of noncitizen voting remains central to the political argument. Research summarized by Brookings finds that the personal legal risks are high and the practical benefit of one illegal vote is negligible. Recent state reviews have likewise produced small numbers: Georgia identified 20 noncitizens among 8.2 million registered voters before the 2024 election, while Ohio secured nine indictments over a decade.

The stay lasts until the Supreme Court declines a future petition or resolves the case after full review. The justices have therefore signaled skepticism toward the lower court’s reasoning without issuing a final ruling on whether the modified program complies with privacy and Social Security laws. The administration must still pursue its appeal, and states remain bound by federal and state protections governing notice, evidence and removal.

Friday’s decision changes who controls the system while that litigation proceeds, not the legal standard for voter eligibility. Election officials may use SAVE again, but its results require verification, systematic purges remain restricted before November, and the evidence shows that mistakes can reach eligible citizens. The longer-term consequence will turn on whether the courts ultimately permit the federal government to combine sensitive records for election use on a national scale.