Court denies government stay in League of Women Voters case

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit recently denied a request from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to stay a lower court's ruling that invalidated a controversial voter verification system known as modified SAVE. This decision affects how states can verify the citizenship status of voters, particularly in states like Texas that have implemented the system. The ruling is significant as it addresses issues of voter rights and privacy, particularly for individuals who may be wrongly classified as noncitizens.

The case, League of Women Voters v. DHS, was filed after the League of Women Voters and other plaintiffs challenged the modified SAVE program, which allows state and local election officials to verify the citizenship status of individuals registering to vote. The plaintiffs argued that the program violates the Social Security Act, the Privacy Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The D.C. Circuit's ruling underscores the ongoing debate over voting rights and the use of technology in election processes.

Background

The League of Women Voters, along with several state affiliates and individual citizens, filed the lawsuit against DHS in September 2025. They claimed that the modified SAVE program, which was implemented following an executive order from President Trump, lacked statutory authority and violated multiple federal laws. The program was designed to connect DHS records with Social Security Administration (SSA) records, allowing for the verification of citizenship status through the use of Social Security numbers.

Initially, the district court denied preliminary relief, stating that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate irreparable harm. However, after further proceedings, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on June 22, 2026. The court found that DHS did not have the authority to implement the modified SAVE program and that it violated the Social Security Act and the Privacy Act. The court's decision effectively set aside the modified SAVE system, prompting the government to appeal.

The Ruling

The D.C. Circuit Court ruled on the government's emergency motion for a stay pending appeal. The court denied the government's request, stating that the government had not met the stringent requirements necessary for such extraordinary relief. The court noted, "To grant the extraordinary relief of a stay, we would need to elect to excuse the government’s forfeiture for purposes of this preliminary stage of the proceedings and then conclude that there is a strong showing that the forfeited arguments... are likely to succeed in this appeal."

The ruling emphasized that the government had raised new arguments regarding the Social Security Act claim only after the district court had already granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs. The court stated that these arguments were forfeited and that it would not consider them for the purposes of the stay motion. The ruling was issued by a panel of judges, including Chief Judge Srinivasan and Judges Wilkins and Katsas.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for voter verification processes across the United States. By denying the stay, the court effectively upholds the district court's decision to invalidate the modified SAVE system, which means that states like Texas will have to revert to previous methods of verifying voter eligibility. This could lead to increased challenges for states in maintaining accurate voter rolls and verifying citizenship status.

The decision also highlights the ongoing legal battles surrounding voter rights and the use of technology in elections. The ruling may set a precedent for future cases involving the intersection of immigration status and voting rights, particularly as technology continues to play a larger role in electoral processes.

What's Next

The government can appeal this ruling, and it remains to be seen whether they will pursue further legal action. Additionally, there may be related cases pending in other jurisdictions, particularly in states that have implemented similar voter verification systems. The outcome of this case could influence those proceedings and shape the future of voter verification practices nationwide.