A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on Friday, September 4, 2026, rejected a request by the Trump administration to lift a ban on using a federal immigration database to verify voter registration records. The 2-1 decision maintains a lower court's prohibition on using the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system for voter eligibility checks ahead of the November 3 midterm elections.
The ruling follows a June 2026 decision by a lower court that blocked the administration from using the revamped immigration database for voter list maintenance. While that nationwide block was in place, a federal judge in Florida issued a separate order in July 2026 requiring the Department of Homeland Security to grant four Republican-led states access to the data. The current appeals court ruling addresses the broader federal effort to utilize the system.
Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan and U.S. Circuit Judge Robert Wilkins, both appointed by President Barack Obama, wrote that the use of the SAVE system violates the Social Security Act by sharing the private information of millions of Americans. The majority also expressed concern that inaccurate data could force registered voters to provide additional proof of citizenship or face the cancellation of their registration. U.S. Circuit Judge Gregory Katsas, an appointee of President Donald Trump, dissented from the decision.
The court noted the system contains private information belonging to millions of Americans. While the exact cost to taxpayers of the litigation or the database maintenance was not reported, the legal outcome determines whether states can identify non-citizens on their rolls using the database. In the four Republican-led states mentioned in the Florida case, the conflict between different court orders creates a complex legal environment for election supervisors as they prepare for the November 3 vote.
The decision establishes that the SAVE system violates the Social Security Act. The next step in the legal process would be a potential appeal, though no dates for further hearings have been announced. The ruling ensures the ban remains in effect through the 2026 midterm elections unless a higher court intervenes.