Court Strikes Trump’s Executive Order on SAVE Voter-Verification System

The League of Women Voters prevails over Trump in court.

Judge Sparkle Sooknanan has struck down the Trump administration’s expanded SAVE voter-verification system.

Sooknanan ruled that federal agencies unlawfully created a centralized database containing Social Security and citizenship data to facilitate mass voter verification.

Easiest Prediction in the World

• The court ruled the agencies violated the Privacy Act, the Social Security Act, and the APA, and found they proceeded despite knowing the citizenship data contained accuracy problems that could wrongly flag eligible U.S. citizens as non-citizens.
• The court says federal agencies “haphazardly” combined the private data of millions of Americans, relied on citizenship information they knew was unreliable, and “knowingly trampled on the privacy rights of American citizens” in a way that threatened the right to vote.

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY, et al.,
Defendants.

Please consider League of Women Voters v Homeland Security

Memorandum Opinion

This case implicates two fundamental rights that protect Americans from government overreach: the right to privacy and the right to vote. In the past year, several federal agencies have joined forces to create a centralized federal database that contains the private information of United States citizens, including Social Security numbers, citizenship status, and other sensitive data. But decades ago, Congress put protections in place to prevent precisely this type of centralized data bank. And the record in this case shows that the federal agencies that created this database knew that the database violates those statutory protections.

The agencies were scrambling to comply with an Executive Order aimed at reshaping federal elections, which directed them to create a system for mass voter verification. So they haphazardly combined and repurposed the private information of millions of Americans, including citizenship data that they knew to be unreliable. Since then, states have partnered with the federal government to access the database and are actively removing United States citizens from voter rolls based on inaccurate information. All in all, the federal government has knowingly trampled on the privacy rights of American citizens in a manner that threatens the sacred right to vote. This Court cannot stand idly by while that happens.

Last March, President Donald J. Trump signed a sweeping Executive Order directing actions related to the administration of elections. Exec. Order No. 14248 of March 25, 2025, Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections, 90 Fed. Reg. 14,005 (Mar. 28, 2025) (DHS AR 334–39). Several lawsuits followed, and courts across the country have since enjoined various aspects of that Executive Order. As relevant here, the Executive Order instructed certain federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Social Security Administration (SSA), to put systems in place for state and local authorities to verify the citizenship or immigration status of registered voters or individuals registering to vote. The Executive Order triggered an overhaul of a system maintained by DHS to verify citizenship and immigration status—the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system. The 2025 SAVE overhaul modified the system in three major ways: (1) to include the records of naturalborn citizens, (2) to access SSA records, including Social Security numbers, and (3) to permit bulk searches of records by SAVE users.

The League of Women Voters, its local affiliates, and the Electronic Privacy Information Center sued DHS, SSA, and other federal governmental actors (collectively, the Federal Defendants) to challenge the overhaul of SAVE, including the establishment of the modified system and two related notices published by DHS and SSA. They allege that the modifications transformed the system’s functionality, increased the scope of covered individuals, made SAVE less accurate, violated statutory procedures, and were contrary to law. The Plaintiffs originally moved for an Administrative Procedure Act (APA) stay, which this Court denied for failure to show irreparable harm. Since then, states have run their voter rolls through the modified SAVE system, and some of the Plaintiffs’ members have been wrongfully identified as non-citizens by SAVE, resulting in the cancellation of their voter registrations. Meanwhile, the Court permitted the State of Texas to intervene as a Defendant in this action.

The Plaintiffs now move for summary judgment. The Court agrees that the establishment of the SAVE modified system and the notices that followed are unlawful in several respects. First, they violate a prohibition in the Social Security Act against the disclosure of Social Security numbers and other related SSA records. Second, they violate both substantive and procedural protections in the Privacy Act, which prevent the non-consensual disclosure of certain information (both by federal agencies and between federal agencies) and require notice and comment for certain actions relevant here. Third, they violate the APA. The Court therefore sets aside and vacates the 2025 SAVE modified system and the related notices because they were contrary to law, arbitrary and capricious, in excess of statutory authority, and without observance of procedure required by law.

Social Security Act

Turning to the merits, the Plaintiffs first argue that the modified SAVE system of records violates the Social Security Act. They are correct.The Social Security Act instructs that: “Social security account numbers and related records that are obtained or maintained by authorized persons pursuant to any provision of law enacted on or after October 1, 1990, shall be confidential, and no authorized person shall disclose any such social security account number or related record.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(c)(2)(C)(viii)(I). An “authorized person” is “an officer or employee of the United States, an officer or employee of any State, political subdivision of a State, or agency of a State or political subdivision of a State, and any other person” who has access to such records. Id. § 405(c)(2)(C)(viii)(III). There can be no question that the modified SAVE system violates this prohibition—the system discloses both Social Security numbers and related records maintained by SSA.

The Privacy Act

But there is more. Turning to the Privacy Act, the Plaintiffs argue that the SAVE modified system violates the Act’s substantive and procedural protections. Pls.’ Mot. 35–40. The Defendants challenge the Plaintiffs’ ability to bring these claims under the APA and argue that they fail in any event. See Fed. Defs.’ Mot. 54–59. The Plaintiffs’ arguments are more persuasive.

Disclosure Claims

On the merits of the disclosure claims, the Plaintiffs argue that the Federal Defendants’ disclosure of their SSA data to DHS and SAVE users violates the Privacy Act’s protections against non-consensual disclosures. Pls.’ Mot. 35. They are plainly correct. The Privacy Act makes it “unlawful for an agency to disclose a record to another agency” or to any other entity “without the written consent of the person to whom the record pertains.”

Procedural Claims

Next, the Plaintiffs argue that the establishment of the modified SAVE system outlined in the 2025 SORNs without notice and comment violates the Privacy Act’s procedural protections. Pls.’ Mot. 38–44. The Court agrees.

The Administrative Procedure Act

The Plaintiffs also argue that the establishment of the SAVE modified system was arbitrary and capricious under the APA, 5 U.SC. § 706(2)(A). Pls.’ Mot. 40–44. The Court is persuaded. The APA “requires agencies to engage in reasoned decision-making” and “to reasonably explain to reviewing courts the bases for the actions they take and the conclusions they reach.”

Other Statutes

Having flunked compliance with the Social Security Act, the Privacy Act, and the APA, the Defendants look to other statutes to justify the establishment of the modified SAVE system. They contend that even if the agency action violates the Social Security Act, the Privacy Act, or the APA, it is nevertheless authorized by provisions of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (1986 Act), Pub. L. No. 99–603, 100 Stat. 3359, and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (1996 Act), Pub. L. No. 104–208, 110 Stat. 3009–546. Fed. Defs.’ Mot. 45–53; Texas Mot. 25–27. This argument is not a winner either.

Comity and Equitable Considerations

Finally, the Defendants ask this Court to deny relief to the Plaintiffs based on “principles of equity and comity”; entering a judgment for the Plaintiffs, they say, may interfere with consent decrees entered during this litigation in other federal courts while this litigation was ongoing. See Fed. Defs.’ Mot. 62. The Court is not convinced for two reasons. First, the Defendants’ argument necessarily requires this Court to construe the Defendants’ consent decrees before other courts—something that this Court lacks the authority to do. See Martini v. Republic Steel Corp., 532 F.2d 1079, 1081 (6th Cir. 1976)

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 66, and denies the Federal Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (or in the alternative Motion for Summary Judgment), ECF No. 77, and the State of Texas’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 97. A separate order will issue.

Easiest Slam Dunk in History

1. Trump lost on Social Security Act
2. Trump lost on Privacy Act
3. Trump lost on the Administrative Procedure Act
4. Trump lost on Other Statutes
5. Trump lost on Disclosure Claims
6. Trump lost on Comity and Equitable Considerations

This was one of the most obviously unconstitutional executive orders in history.

Why Summary Judgment Instead of a Trial?

The judge granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs because:

• There were no genuine disputes over material facts that required a trial to resolve. The key evidence came from the agencies’ own documents, which showed they knew the changes violated privacy laws but proceeded anyway to comply with the Executive Order.
• The plaintiffs were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The modified SAVE system clearly conflicted with longstanding protections in the Social Security Act (barring SSN disclosures) and the Privacy Act (limits on data sharing and centralized databases). The actions were also arbitrary/capricious and procedurally flawed under the APA. ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov

In short: The record was so one-sided (agencies’ own words and actions undermined their position) that no reasonable fact-finder could rule for the defendants on the key legal questions.

There are more cases and more Executive Orders Trump will lose.

Trump’s Executive Order Blocking Mail-In Votes

On June 13, 2026, I asked What Are the Odds Trump’s Executive Order Blocking Mail-In Votes Stands?

Essentially zero. Let’s discuss why.

That is a different case than what was just decided, but expect the same outcome.

Also, the SAVE ACT in Congress now is unconstitutional for three reasons. However the SAVE ACT cannot be challenged because it is not even law yet.

Fortunately the SAVE ACT will never get signed. Odds of making it through Congress this year are about 1 percent. Polymarket is overly optimistic at 10 percent.

My fallback position is the courts would strike it even if it did pass.

For discussion of the constitutionality of the SAVE ACT please see SAVE Act Silliness: Trump’s “Go for the Gold” Killed It

The SAVE Act is unconstitutional. Trump want to make it worse. Only fools think they know more than Thune.

Attempt to Steal the Election

Q: What is the point of Trump’s obviously illegal Executive Orders?
A: The same as the SAVE ACT. Trump wants to rig the election to steal it.

If this was not obvious before, it should be now. Trump lost on six points, as predicted, an admittedly easy call.

Trump will lose on restricting mail-in votes too, and the SAVE ACT is dead.

Trump will win on counting ballots that arrive after election election day, and I support that ruling.