What Is the Homeland Security Citizenship Data Lawsuit?
The Homeland Security citizenship data lawsuit is a set of federal court challenges to how the Department of Homeland Security assembles and uses citizenship data to check whether registered voters are U.S. citizens. The lead case, League of Women Voters v. DHS (No. 25-cv-3501, D.D.C.), targets the 2025 overhaul of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system, and a second case filed on October 15, 2026 targets DHS's alleged collection of voter files from at least 47 states.
SAVE is a DHS program that has let federal, state and local agencies verify citizenship and immigration status since 1986, according to the Supreme Court's September 25, 2026 order. The 2025 overhaul changed SAVE in three ways: it began to include records of natural-born citizens, it began to draw on Social Security Administration records including Social Security numbers, and it began to allow bulk searches of many people at once.
Neither case is a class action seeking money or a multidistrict litigation. The plaintiffs are advocacy organizations, their members and individual voters who ask a court to set aside government action, and the June 22, 2026 opinion decides the SAVE case on the claims of the organizational plaintiffs and their members without describing a certified class.
“This case implicates two fundamental rights that protect Americans from government overreach: the right to privacy and the right to vote. In the past year, several federal agencies have joined forces to create a centralized federal database that contains the private information of United States citizens, including Social Security numbers, citizenship status, and other sensitive data.”
Source: League of Women Voters v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, No. 25-cv-3501 (SLS), Memorandum Opinion, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan (June 22, 2026)
Why Was the Homeland Security Citizenship Data Lawsuit Filed?
The Homeland Security citizenship data lawsuit was filed because the plaintiffs say a 2025 Executive Order pushed federal agencies to merge sensitive records without following the law. Executive Order 14248, signed on March 25, 2025, directed DHS to put systems in place so state and local officials could verify the citizenship of registered voters and directed the Social Security Administration to make its records available to DHS for that purpose. DHS launched the modified SAVE program two months later, and the League of Women Voters, its local affiliates and EPIC sued in September 2025.
The SAVE plaintiffs raised three claims, according to the Supreme Court's order: that the changes violated the Social Security Act's confidentiality rule, that they violated the Privacy Act of 1974, and that they were arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. The October 15, 2026 complaint, as reported by the Associated Press, adds that DHS obtained voter files from at least 47 states, combined them with commercial datasets and did so without the safeguards federal privacy law requires.
What Harms Does the Homeland Security Citizenship Data Lawsuit Allege?
The Homeland Security citizenship data lawsuit alleges four distinct harms: disclosure of Social Security records, inaccurate citizenship flags for naturalized voters, Privacy Act violations, and the collection of state voter files. The court rulings so far address the first three in the SAVE case, and the fourth is the core of the October 15, 2026 complaint, which no court has yet ruled on.
Disclosure of Social Security Records
The Social Security Act's confidentiality provision bars federal officials from disclosing Social Security numbers and related records except where the law allows it.
The SAVE plaintiffs allege that the modified system sends a person's name, date of birth and full or partial Social Security number to SSA, and that SSA then returns the person's full name, date of birth, full Social Security number and citizenship status to DHS, as the Supreme Court's order describes the process. Judge Sparkle Sooknanan held on June 22, 2026 that this arrangement violated the Social Security Act's disclosure ban. The Supreme Court majority said on September 25, 2026 that it was likely to reverse that holding, reasoning that a 1996 immigration statute, 8 U.S.C. section 1373, likely overrides the Social Security Act's restriction for this purpose.
Inaccurate Citizenship Flags for Naturalized Voters
A naturalized citizen is a person who became a U.S. citizen after birth, and older government records may still list that person as a noncitizen.
The SAVE plaintiffs allege that Social Security records often fail to show that a person has since naturalized, so the modified system can label a lawful voter a possible noncitizen. The administrative record shows DHS "assumes the accuracy" of SSA data, the district court noted, and it cited an independent review in Travis County, Texas, that found 25 percent of the county's noncitizen matches were people who had already proven citizenship. Some of the plaintiffs' members were wrongfully flagged and had their voter registrations cancelled, according to the opinion, and the Supreme Court's order relied on a Louisiana member, identified as J. Doe 4, to find that the plaintiff organizations likely have standing.
Privacy Act Violations
The Privacy Act of 1974 limits how federal agencies collect, share and combine records about individuals and requires public notice before an agency changes a system of records.
The SAVE plaintiffs allege that DHS and SSA changed their systems of records without the substantive protections and the notice-and-comment process the Privacy Act requires. Judge Sooknanan agreed and vacated both agencies' 2025 notices of a modified system of records, published at 90 Fed. Reg. 48,948 (DHS) and 90 Fed. Reg. 50,879 (SSA). The Supreme Court majority said it was likely to reverse the holding that the agencies violated the Privacy Act, and the case continues on appeal to the D.C. Circuit.
Collection of State Voter Files
A voter file is a state's record of registered voters, which can include names, addresses, dates of birth and voting history.
The October 15, 2026 complaint alleges that DHS collected voter registration data from at least 47 states and combined it with commercially acquired personal information to create a nationwide database. According to Digital Watch's summary of the complaint, internal DHS records show Homeland Security Investigations had ingested about 50.6 million records obtained through the Department of Justice and another 48.4 million from other sources as of June 2026. The plaintiffs cite Nevada, where DHS first flagged nearly 16,000 registrants as possible noncitizens, a number later reduced to 185, all of whom state officials determined were citizens.
What Is the Current Status of the Homeland Security Citizenship Data Lawsuit?
The current status of the Homeland Security citizenship data lawsuit is a stayed district court victory in the SAVE case and a newly filed complaint in the voter-file case. The SAVE ruling is paused by the Supreme Court while the appeal continues, and the October 15, 2026 complaint has not yet drawn a ruling.
League of Women Voters v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
This SAVE case was decided for the plaintiffs in the district court and is now paused by the Supreme Court. Judge Sparkle Sooknanan granted summary judgment on June 22, 2026, and a divided D.C. Circuit panel denied the government a stay before the Supreme Court granted one on September 25, 2026.
| Court | U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia |
| Case number | 1:25-cv-03501 (SLS) |
| Judge | Hon. Sparkle L. Sooknanan |
| Filed | September 2025 |
| Plaintiffs | League of Women Voters, state and local League affiliates, EPIC and individual voters |
| Defendants | DHS, SSA and other federal defendants; the State of Texas intervened |
| District court ruling | June 22, 2026: summary judgment for plaintiffs; modified SAVE system and two related notices vacated |
| D.C. Circuit | Divided panel (Chief Judge Srinivasan and Judge Wilkins, Judge Katsas dissenting) denied a stay pending appeal |
| Supreme Court | No. 26A308, September 25, 2026: stay granted pending appeal and any certiorari petition; Justices Jackson, Sotomayor and Kagan dissented |
| Effect today | The federal government may operate the modified SAVE program; the National Voter Registration Act's 90-day limit on systematic removals still applies |
League of Women Voters, EPIC and LULAC v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
This voter-file case is at its earliest stage. The League of Women Voters, EPIC and the League of United Latin American Citizens filed a 42-page complaint on October 15, 2026, and no ruling had been reported as of October 23, 2026.
| Court | U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia |
| Case number | 1:26-cv-03602 |
| Filed | October 15, 2026 |
| Plaintiffs | League of Women Voters, EPIC and the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) |
| Defendant | U.S. Department of Homeland Security |
| Claims | Privacy Act of 1974, Administrative Procedure Act and Paperwork Reduction Act |
| Relief sought | A declaration that the policy is unlawful, an order blocking further collection and use of voter information, and deletion of data already obtained |
Has the Homeland Security Citizenship Data Lawsuit Been Settled?
No. The Homeland Security citizenship data lawsuit has not been settled, and neither case has a settlement fund, payout amount or claims process.
Both cases ask a court to declare agency action unlawful, block it and, in the voter-file case, order deletion of collected data, rather than to award money to individuals. The June 22, 2026 ruling in the SAVE case was a vacatur of the modified system, not a damages award.
Compensation is generally unavailable in suits like these because federal agencies and officials sued in their official capacities are usually protected by sovereign immunity from money damages, and only a qualified attorney can say whether any individual voter has a separate claim.
The Supreme Court's stay in the SAVE case lasts until the D.C. Circuit decides the appeal and any certiorari petition is resolved: the stay ends automatically if certiorari is denied, and ends when the judgment is sent down if certiorari is granted.
Homeland Security Citizenship Data Lawsuit Updates and Case Status
Here is the current status of the Homeland Security citizenship data lawsuit, with every confirmed filing and ruling listed below. As of October 2026, the Supreme Court has paused the SAVE ruling while the appeal continues, the October 15, 2026 voter-file complaint awaits its first ruling, and no settlement exists. The full timeline below follows each development in order.
Homeland Security Citizenship Data Lawsuit Timeline of Events
Executive Order 14248 Directs DHS and SSA to Build Voter Verification Systems
President Trump signed Executive Order 14248, which directed DHS to put systems in place for state and local authorities to verify the citizenship status of registered voters and directed the Social Security Administration to make its records available to DHS for that purpose.
DHS Launches the Modified SAVE Program
DHS launched the modified SAVE program about two months after the Executive Order, adding checks against Social Security Administration records, including Social Security numbers, and allowing state and local agencies to run bulk searches.
League of Women Voters and EPIC Sue Over the SAVE Overhaul
The League of Women Voters, its local affiliates and the Electronic Privacy Information Center filed League of Women Voters v. DHS in the District of Columbia, challenging the modified SAVE program under the Social Security Act, the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.
SAVE Plaintiffs File Memorandum Seeking Preliminary Relief
The League of Women Voters plaintiffs filed a memorandum in support of preliminary relief as Document 16-1 in No. 25-cv-3501, and the court later denied their request for an interim stay for failure to show irreparable harm, as the June 22, 2026 opinion records.
USCIS Publishes the Modified SAVE System Notice
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services published changes to SAVE in the Federal Register, including the addition of Social Security Administration records and bulk searches, a notice the district court later vacated as part of its June 22, 2026 ruling.
SAVE Plaintiffs Move for Summary Judgment
The plaintiffs in League of Women Voters v. DHS moved for summary judgment on their Social Security Act, Privacy Act and Administrative Procedure Act claims, setting up the ruling that followed three months later.
Judge Sooknanan Vacates the Modified SAVE System
Judge Sparkle Sooknanan of the District of Columbia federal court granted summary judgment to the League of Women Voters plaintiffs, holding that the modified SAVE system and two related notices violated the Social Security Act, the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act, and she set them aside.
DHS Appears to Disable SAVE Bulk Upload and Social Security Number Search
Plaintiffs' lawyers in the SAVE case said government attorneys told them the bulk upload and Social Security number search functions were disabled after the ruling, according to Democracy Docket, although DHS did not directly confirm the shutdown when asked.
Solicitor General Asks the Supreme Court to Pause the SAVE Ruling
Solicitor General D. John Sauer filed an application in Department of Homeland Security v. League of Women Voters, No. 26A308, arguing that the plaintiffs lack standing, that DHS has statutory authority to check citizenship through Social Security records, and that the government could not undo the ruling in time for the 2026 midterms.
SAVE Plaintiffs Oppose the Supreme Court Stay Application
The League of Women Voters and EPIC filed their opposition to the government's stay application in No. 26A308 on the deadline Chief Justice John Roberts had set for September 15, 2026.
Supreme Court Stays the SAVE Ruling Over Three Dissents
The Supreme Court granted the government's application in No. 26A308 in an unsigned order, staying Judge Sooknanan's June 22, 2026 judgment pending appeal, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented alongside Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
League of Women Voters, EPIC and LULAC File the Voter-File Complaint
The League of Women Voters, EPIC and LULAC filed a 42-page complaint in the District of Columbia federal court, No. 1:26-cv-03602, alleging that DHS obtained voter files from at least 47 states and combined them with commercial data in violation of the Privacy Act, the Administrative Procedure Act and the Paperwork Reduction Act.
California Judge Restricts DHS Election Field Operations in Nine States
U.S. District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin ruled in a separate case brought by the California Nurses Association and National Nurses United that DHS's election-related field interviews likely violate the Voting Rights Act, and she ordered them halted in nine states until polls close, with the order stayed until 5 p.m. on Friday, October 23, 2026 to allow an appeal.
What Did Homeland Security Allegedly Know About Its Citizenship Data Problems?
Homeland Security allegedly knew the citizenship data it relied on was unreliable and that the modified SAVE system conflicted with federal privacy protections. Judge Sooknanan wrote that the record shows the agencies knew the database violated statutory protections and combined citizenship data they knew to be unreliable while scrambling to comply with the Executive Order, and the administrative record shows DHS assumes the accuracy of Social Security data. The Supreme Court majority did not accept the legal conclusion, saying the agencies were likely to prevail because Congress authorized DHS to request and receive citizenship information from other agencies.
| Defendant | Role in the dispute |
|---|---|
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | Operates SAVE, and is the defendant in the October 15, 2026 voter-file complaint |
| Social Security Administration | Supplies the Social Security records and citizenship data that the modified SAVE system checks |
| State of Texas | Intervened as a defendant in the SAVE case and has run its voter rolls through the modified system |
How Does the Homeland Security Citizenship Data Lawsuit Compare to Related Cases?
The Homeland Security citizenship data lawsuit differs from the related voter-roll cases because it challenges how DHS builds and runs its data systems, not how agents conduct field operations or how states manage their rolls. The proceedings below are separate cases with their own courts and dockets.
| Proceeding | Court | Date | What it covers |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nurses' challenge to DHS door-knocking operations | Federal court in California (Judge Martinez-Olguin) | October 21, 2026 | Likely Voting Rights Act violation; elections-related field interviews halted in nine states until polls close, stayed until October 23, 2026 |
| Challenge to DOJ policy of obtaining state voter lists | Federal court (case name not confirmed) | October 9, 2026 | A judge ruled the policy of comparing state voter records against federal citizenship data unlawful, as reported by Digital Watch |
| United States v. California election officials | Federal court in California | October 15, 2026 | The Justice Department asks a judge to bar California from counting mail ballots from about 20,000 people it calls likely noncitizens |
The nurses' case shows the same data reliability concern from another angle, because the judge pointed to a "high likelihood of error" in the lists DHS assembled from government and commercial data. None of these cases decides whether the SAVE overhaul or the voter-file collection is lawful.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Homeland Security citizenship data lawsuit about?
The Homeland Security citizenship data lawsuit is about whether DHS and SSA unlawfully combined Social Security and citizenship records into the SAVE voter-verification system, and whether DHS unlawfully collected voter files from at least 47 states. Two federal suits in the District of Columbia raise those questions.
Is the Homeland Security citizenship data lawsuit a class action or MDL?
The Homeland Security citizenship data lawsuit is not an MDL, and the June 22, 2026 opinion in the SAVE case describes organizational plaintiffs and their members rather than a certified class. The plaintiffs seek court orders, not money damages.
Did the Supreme Court end the Homeland Security citizenship data lawsuit?
No. The Supreme Court did not end the Homeland Security citizenship data lawsuit, it stayed Judge Sooknanan's June 22, 2026 judgment on September 25, 2026 while the appeal to the D.C. Circuit continues. The majority said it was likely to reverse the lower court's holding that the agencies violated the Social Security Act, the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.
Can states use the modified SAVE system right now?
States can use the modified SAVE system while the Supreme Court's September 25, 2026 stay lasts, because the stay lets the federal government operate the program pending appeal. The order adds that the National Voter Registration Act still bars systematic removals within 90 days of a federal election, so the system can be used for individualized inquiries.
Is there a Homeland Security citizenship data lawsuit settlement?
There is no Homeland Security citizenship data lawsuit settlement. Neither case has a settlement fund or payout, and the relief sought is a court declaration, an order blocking the policy and deletion of collected data.
How is the October 15, 2026 voter-file lawsuit different from the SAVE lawsuit?
The October 15, 2026 voter-file lawsuit is different from the SAVE lawsuit because it targets DHS's alleged collection of voter files from at least 47 states rather than the 2025 SAVE overhaul. It is No. 1:26-cv-03602 and has no ruling yet, while the SAVE case is No. 25-cv-3501 and is on appeal.
Which judge is handling the Homeland Security citizenship data lawsuit?
Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia handled the SAVE case and issued the June 22, 2026 ruling. The judge for the October 15, 2026 voter-file case was not confirmed in the sources reviewed.
Can a voter join the Homeland Security citizenship data lawsuit?
The Homeland Security citizenship data lawsuit has no claims process or sign-up for voters, because the plaintiffs are named organizations and individuals seeking court orders. The Supreme Court's order describes the SAVE process as requiring an agency to contact a person it cannot confirm as a citizen and request proof of citizenship, and only a qualified attorney can advise on an individual voter's situation.