A federal appeals court panel rejected the Trump administration’s bid to lift a ban on using a federal immigration database to check the accuracy of citizenship records on states’ voter rolls, in a 2-1 ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The decision reinforces strict limits on how DHS can share immigration verification data with state and local agencies—a critical issue for practitioners advising clients on government records access and data governance.
What changed
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia declined to lift a lower court’s ban on using the Homeland Security Department’s Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database. Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan and Circuit Judge Robert Wilkins upheld the lower court decision that the SAVE system violates the Social Security Act as it shares millions of Americans’ private information. Circuit Judge Gregory Katsas, an appointee of President Donald Trump, dissented.
The earlier ruling determined that the government cannot use the system ahead of the November 3 midterm elections. A federal judge in Florida in July ordered the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to resume giving four Republican-led states access to the database after another judge blocked it from continuing to use the database nationwide, creating a split-court landscape that this DC Circuit decision now clarifies nationally.
Why it matters
This ruling significantly constrains DHS’s ability to share immigration verification data outside its intended administrative purposes. For practitioners:
- Data-privacy implications: The court treated the SAVE database as subject to strict privacy protections under the Social Security Act. This means DHS cannot freely repurpose immigration records for voter verification, election administration, or other cross-government checks without violating federal privacy law.
- State-level complications: States that have been cross-checking voter rolls against SAVE data may face pressure to reverse or audit those purges. Advocacy groups who brought the lawsuit, including the League of Women Voters, said that wrongfully identified noncitizens have been kicked off voter rolls.
- Naturalization clients at risk: SAVE can be outdated, meaning immigrants who have been naturalized and are thus eligible to vote are sometimes labeled as noncitizens. This underscores the importance of monitoring SAVE record accuracy for any client whose citizenship or immigration status may be stored there.
Way forward
- Verify SAVE records for any client: Request FOIA/FERPA access to what DHS holds on your client in the SAVE system, especially if the client has naturalized, adjusted status, or had TPS. Errors can cascade into voter roll purges and other downstream harm.
- Flag data-sharing concerns: If a state or local agency requests immigration data from your client under the premise of voter verification, document the request and advise the client of privacy protections now reinforced by this ruling.
- Monitor further litigation: The new rulings deepen a divide between the appellate courts and make it even more likely that the Supreme Court will take up the issue. Supreme Court review is possible; stay alert for petitions.
- Counsel on naturalization record-keeping: Naturalized clients should maintain naturalization certificates and proactive proof of citizenship. SAVE delays and errors have real downstream consequences for voter registration and ID.
Disclaimer
This article is not legal advice. Fola Form is a software company, not a law firm. Always consult a licensed immigration attorney before taking action based on policy changes. Immigration law and agency policy can change without notice; verify the details of this ruling and its current application by reading the full court decision and consulting the primary source linked above.