Department of Homeland Security v. League of Women Voters

AI-Generated Summary

Case Information:

Case Name: Department of Homeland Security, et al. v. League of Women Voters, et al.
Docket Number: 26A308
Dates: Decision on application for stay: September 25, 2026 (no argument date specified)
Lower Court: United States District Court for the District of Columbia (order vacated the modified SAVE program); D.C. Circuit denied stay (divided panel)

Facts of the Case:

Since 1986, the SAVE program has enabled verification of citizenship and immigration status using DHS, DOJ, and State Department records. In March 2025, an Executive Order directed expansion to allow state/local verification of voter citizenship status, incorporating SSA records (including SSNs) and permitting bulk searches.
The modified SAVE program uploads names, dates of birth, or SSNs to SSA for matching, returns citizenship status via DHS, and requires additional proof if citizenship cannot be confirmed.
Plaintiff organizations (including League of Women Voters and EPIC) sued, alleging violations of the Social Security Act’s confidentiality provision (42 U.S.C. §405(c)(2)(C)(viii)(I)), the Privacy Act’s substantive/procedural requirements, and the APA. The District Court granted summary judgment to plaintiffs, vacated the program, and denied a stay. The D.C. Circuit denied a stay (Judge Katsas dissenting). The Government sought a stay from the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues Presented:

Whether plaintiffs have Article III standing.
Whether the modified SAVE program violates the Social Security Act, Privacy Act, or APA.
Whether 8 U.S.C. §1373 (IIRIRA) authorizes DHS/SSA to request and receive citizenship information notwithstanding other statutory restrictions.
The case involves statutory interpretation of the Social Security Act, Privacy Act, APA, and IIRIRA §1373. Plaintiffs argued violations of confidentiality and procedural rules; the Government argued §1373 supersedes restrictions and that plaintiffs lack standing.

The Court's Decision (Main Opinion):

Author & Type: Per Curiam opinion.
Holding: The Government is likely to succeed on the merits because §1373(a)–(b)’s “notwithstanding” clauses authorize DHS to request/receive citizenship information from SSA, superseding conflicting restrictions in the Social Security Act and Privacy Act; §1373(c) contemplates such information-sharing. Plaintiffs likely have standing, but their claims lack merit.
Legal Reasoning: Section 1373’s text prohibits interference with disclosure of citizenship/immigration status information to DHS “notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law.” This necessarily authorizes the requested disclosures to avoid an “impossible predicament” for agencies. Section 1373(c) requires DHS responses to state/local inquiries, supporting the modified SAVE regime. The Court also found irreparable harm to the Government from inability to use its preferred program for election administration and noted precedent for staying orders setting aside important federal programs.
Disposition: Application for stay granted. The District Court’s June 22, 2026 order is stayed pending D.C. Circuit appeal and any certiorari petition (stay terminates upon denial of certiorari or judgment of the Court if granted).

Concurring Opinion(s) (if any):

Dissenting Opinion(s) (if any):

Justice Jackson (joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan) dissented. Sections 1373(a)–(b) do not affirmatively authorize disclosures or override explicit statutory limits; they only bar government entities/officials from interfering with otherwise lawful exchanges. Section 1373(c) applies only to DHS and does not displace privacy laws. The Government failed to show likely success on the merits or irreparable harm (pre-2025 SAVE remains available), while the majority ignored demonstrated harms to recently naturalized citizens (risk of deregistration or added burdens). The equities and stay factors do not favor relief.

Potential Significance:

The ruling allows the modified SAVE program to operate pending appeal, enabling federal assistance to state/local officials for individualized voter citizenship verification under §1373(c) during the period before midterm elections (noting NVRA limits on systematic removals). It interprets IIRIRA §1373 as superseding privacy/confidentiality restrictions in other statutes for citizenship-information sharing.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Key terms: Voter Citizenship Verification, Government Data Sharing, Privacy Protections