Introduction
On September 25, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a per curiam opinion in Department of Homeland Security v. League of Women Voters, No. 26A308, granting the federal government's application for a stay of lower court orders that had set aside a modified version of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program. The opinion addresses the program's structure, the legal challenges brought against it, and the standard the Court applied in deciding whether to grant the stay. This article summarizes the key elements of that opinion for educational purposes.
Background: the SAVE program and its modification
According to the opinion, the SAVE program has existed since 1986 and has long allowed federal, state, and local government agencies to verify the citizenship and immigration status of noncitizens applying for public benefits. For decades, it relied on records maintained by the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the Department of State.
The opinion explains that in March 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order No. 14248, published at 90 Fed. Reg. 14006 (2025), directing DHS to put new systems in place to allow state and local authorities to verify the citizenship status of registered voters and individuals registering to vote. The Executive Order also directed the Social Security Administration (SSA) to make its records available to DHS for that purpose.
Two months after the Executive Order, DHS launched a modified SAVE program. The opinion identifies two key differences from the original program: first, the modified program incorporated checks against additional records held by SSA, including social security numbers (SSNs); and second, it allowed state and local authorities to conduct bulk searches of multiple individuals at once.
How the modified SAVE program operates
The opinion describes the operational mechanics of the modified program in some detail. A state or local agency seeking to determine an individual's citizenship status first uploads that individual's first name, last name, date of birth, or full or partial SSN to the SAVE portal. The program automatically discloses that information to SSA, which runs it through its databases to find a match.
SSA then discloses its search results to DHS, including the individual's full name, date of birth, full SSN, and citizenship status. The SAVE portal then returns a response to the requesting agency, either confirming that the individual is a citizen or requesting that the agency resubmit its query with additional information.
Importantly, the opinion notes that if the modified SAVE program is unable to confirm that an individual is a citizen, the agency is required to contact that individual and request that he or she provide proof of citizenship in order to register or remain registered to vote.
The legal challenges brought by the plaintiff organizations
Several organizations, including the League of Women Voters, its local affiliates, and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, sued DHS, SSA, and other federal actors to challenge the modified SAVE program. The opinion identifies three claims as relevant to the stay application.
First, the plaintiffs alleged that the modifications violated a confidentiality provision in the Social Security Act that prohibits the disclosure of SSNs and other SSA records. Second, they alleged violations of substantive and procedural protections in the Privacy Act of 1974, which the opinion describes as prohibiting the nonconsensual disclosure of certain information and requiring agencies to complete a notice-and-comment process for program modifications. Third, the plaintiffs alleged that the modifications were arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
The plaintiff organizations moved for summary judgment on all three claims. The government cross-moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing, that the modified program did not violate the Social Security Act, Privacy Act, or APA, and that Congress had separately authorized DHS in 8 U.S.C. § 1373 to use SSNs and related records notwithstanding any other provision of law.
Proceedings in the lower courts
The opinion states that the District Court agreed with the plaintiff organizations across the board, set aside and vacated the modified SAVE program and its related notices, and denied the government's application for a stay pending appeal.
A divided panel of the D.C. Circuit, consisting of Chief Judge Srinivasan, Judge Wilkins, and Judge Katsas, also denied the government's application for a stay. Judge Katsas dissented from that denial. The government then sought a stay from the Supreme Court.
The standard for granting a stay
The opinion sets out the standard the Court applies when considering a stay application. Citing Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010) (per curiam), the Court states that to succeed, the government must establish: (1) a reasonable probability that four Justices will consider the issue sufficiently meritorious to grant certiorari; (2) a fair prospect that a majority of the Court will vote to reverse the judgment below; and (3) a likelihood that irreparable harm will result from the denial of a stay. The opinion also notes that in close cases, the Court balances the equities and weighs the relative harms to the applicant and to the respondent.
The Court's analysis of standing
Before addressing the merits, the opinion considers whether the plaintiff organizations have standing to bring their claims. The Court focuses on at least one of the plaintiffs' members, identified as J. Doe 4, who is registered to vote in Louisiana, a state that used the modified SAVE program.
The opinion notes that J. Doe 4 demonstrated that SSA records do not accurately reflect that she is now a naturalized citizen. Had the modified SAVE program not been set aside, she likely would have been required to provide additional proof of citizenship. Citing Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465, 475 (1987), the Court states that such a need to take affirmative steps to avoid risk of harm constitutes a cognizable injury supporting standing. On this basis, the Court concludes that the plaintiff organizations likely have standing.
The Court's assessment of the merits
Although the Court finds that the plaintiff organizations likely have standing, it concludes that their claims likely lack merit. The opinion explains that in 1996, Congress separately and expressly authorized DHS to request and receive information relating to citizenship and immigration status from other agencies, including SSA, in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). The Court's analysis of the merits rests on this statutory authorization as a basis for concluding that the government has a fair prospect of prevailing on appeal.
On the basis of its analysis of the likelihood of reversal and the applicable stay standard, the Supreme Court granted the government's application for a stay.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's per curiam opinion in Department of Homeland Security v. League of Women Voters, No. 26A308, addresses a significant dispute over the scope and legality of the modified SAVE program, which expanded the use of SSA records to verify the citizenship status of registered voters and voter registration applicants. The Court applied the established stay standard from Hollingsworth v. Perry, found that the plaintiff organizations likely have standing based on the situation of J. Doe 4, but concluded that their statutory claims under the Social Security Act, Privacy Act, and APA likely lack merit in light of the authorization Congress provided in IIRIRA. The stay was accordingly granted, allowing the modified program to remain in effect while the litigation continues in the lower courts. Readers seeking to understand how this decision may affect their specific circumstances should consult a qualified legal professional.
This article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Sources consulted
- Department of Homeland Security v. League of Women Voters - Supreme Court of the United States, United States
Published by Synojus International
Back to English publications