Clip transcript
- 0:00decision. >> The Supreme Court is allowing the use of
- 0:02a controversial federal voter database that can be used to check the
- 0:07eligibility of voters. It's known as the SAVE system. But there are privacy
- 0:12concerns related to this system, which aggregates a lot of sensitive
- 0:16information, and which isn't always necessarily fully up-to-date. There have
- 0:21been instances where voters were flagged as being ineligible to vote, and the
- 0:26system was wrong. However, today the Supreme Court decided to pause a lower
- 0:31court ruling that wasn't allowing the use of that system. What the majority
- 0:36said is that the federal government has an obligation to respond to requests
- 0:41from state and local election officials seeking to verify the citizenship of
- 0:46voters, and that it couldn't stand in the way of them being able to facilitate
- 0:50the midterm elections. Now, there was a dissent written by Justice Ketanji Brown
- 0:56Jackson for the three liberal liberal justices on the court, and she had a
- 1:00very different view. She said that the harm caused by burdening or
- 1:06disenfranchising even a few lawful voters outweighs the non-existent harm
- 1:11she called it that the government experiences when it's prevented from
- 1:15taking an action that it likely lacks the authority to take. She believes they
- 1:19don't even have this authority at all. But for now, this voter database will be
- 1:25able to be used ahead of the midterm elections. But I spoke with election
The other Supreme Court election ruling from Friday, explained well in under 90 seconds. By 6 to 3 the Court let the administration’s expanded SAVE database back into use for checking voters’ citizenship. Kaufman gives both halves: the majority says the government has an obligation to answer election officials’ requests, Justice Jackson says burdening even a few lawful voters outweighs the government’s harm. She also mentions voters the system flagged wrongly.
“To be sure, that moratorium limits the potential impact of staying the District Court’s order in this case. Still, all agree that the order prevents the Federal Government from using the modified SAVE program to conduct individualized inquiries, which are permitted under federal law during this period.”
Department of Homeland Security v. League of Women Voters, No. 26A308 (Sept. 25, 2026)supremecourt.gov
When students ask me what a ruling “does”, I send them to the order itself. The majority says out loud that the 90-day rule on purging voter rolls limits what this changes before November.
“But if there is a bright side to today’s opinion deciding otherwise, it is that the per curiam will likely have minimal short-term impact, as States will at most conduct individualized voter-roll maintenance using the modified SAVE system ahead of the November elections.”
Department of Homeland Security v. League of Women Voters, No. 26A308 (Sept. 25, 2026)supremecourt.govThen read the dissent. Same point from the other side.
“However, as a result of the ruling, the Trump administration will be able to restart use of the SAVE system to scrutinize state voter rolls after the election, and election officials will be able to use the SAVE system to check the citizenship of individual voters in the meantime as well.”
Supreme Court OKs use of federal citizenship tool to vet voters, but midterm impact will be limitedvotebeat.org
Votebeat on what does change: bulk checks can restart after the election, individual checks can happen now. They also clear up a mix-up I hear constantly. The SAVE Act in Congress and the SAVE database are unrelated, despite the name.
