Department of Homeland Security v. League of Women Voters

Since 1986, the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, or SAVE, program has allowed federal, state, and local government agencies to verify the citizenship and immigration status of non-citizens applying for public benefits.

For decades, it relied on records maintained by the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, the Department of Justice, and the Department of State.

Last year, the federal government expanded SABE's scope.

In March 2025, President Trump signed an executive order 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 later, DHS launched a modified SAVE program.

The modified program differed from the original in two key respects.

First, it incorporated checks against additional records, including social security numbers, maintained by SSA.

Second, it allowed state and local authorities to conduct bulk searches of multiple individuals at once.

Under the modified SAVE program, a state or local agency seeking to determine an individual's citizenship status first uploads the individual's first name, last name, date of birth, or full or partial SSN to the SAVE portal.

The SAVE 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.

Finally, the save portal returns a response to the agency, either confirming that the individual is a citizen, or requesting that the agency resubmit its query with additional information.

If the modified save program is unable to confirm that an individual is a citizen, the agency is required to contact the individual and request that he provide proof of citizenship to register or remain registered to vote.

Various 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.

As relevant here, they raised three claims.

First, they 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 that the modifications violated substantive and procedural protections in the Privacy Act of 1974, which prohibits the non-consensual disclosure of certain information and requires that agencies complete a notice and comment process for program modifications.

Third, they alleged that the modifications were arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act .

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 plaintiffs lacked Article III standing, that the modified SAVE program did not violate the Social Security Act, Privacy Act, or APA, and that Congress had authorized DHS in 8 United States Code Section 1373 to use SSNs and related records notwithstanding any other provision of law.

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 DC Circuit also denied the government's application for a stay.

The government now seeks a stay from this court.

To succeed, the government must establish a reasonable probability that four justices will consider the issue sufficiently meritorious to grant cert, a fair prospect that a majority of the court will vote to reverse the judgment below, and a likelihood that irreparable harm will result from the denial of a stay.