A federal judge in Florida has ordered the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to immediately reinstate critical features of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system. This directive creates a direct legal conflict with a separate federal court ruling in Washington, D.C., which had previously required DHS to disable these very capabilities. The ongoing legal battle centers on whether expanded access to the SAVE database complies with federal privacy laws and how states are permitted to utilize the system for verifying citizenship in voter registration and other government programs.
U.S. District Judge T. Kent Wetherell II, based in Florida, granted an emergency motion filed by the state of Florida and several other states on a recent date. Judge Wetherell concluded that DHS had violated a court-approved settlement agreement by disabling the SAVE system’s bulk-upload and Social Security number search functionalities. In his order, Judge Wetherell mandated that the department immediately restore these functions, stating that DHS was "plainly in violation" of the settlement, which his court had approved in late 2025 and retained jurisdiction to enforce, as reported by Florida's Voice.
This Florida ruling follows a June 2026 decision by U.S. District Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan in Washington, D.C. Judge Sooknanan had found that modifications to the SAVE system implemented under President Trump’s administration likely violated the Privacy Act and the Social Security Act by expanding the use of Americans' personal information. Subsequent to Judge Sooknanan's decision, DHS disabled the disputed features nationwide to comply with the D.C. court's order. This D.C. ruling drew criticism from some Republican lawmakers, with Rep. Abe Hamadeh (R-AZ) introducing articles of impeachment alleging that Judge Sooknanan exceeded her constitutional authority; however, this impeachment effort remains distinct from the underlying litigation concerning the SAVE system.
The legal dispute originated when Florida challenged DHS's verification process, asserting that the database lacked practical search tools necessary for verifying citizenship. Florida argued that users were required to enter unique immigration identifiers instead of more efficient methods like Social Security numbers or bulk record processing. This initial litigation concluded with a settlement agreement that mandated DHS modernize the system by integrating Social Security Administration data and adding bulk-processing capabilities for participating states. According to The Sheffield Press, Indiana, Iowa, and Ohio subsequently joined this agreement.
In his recent order, Judge Wetherell reiterated that his court had previously determined the modifications were lawful when it approved the settlement agreement. He further concluded that the challenged features comply with federal law, citing 8 U.S.C. §1373 and finding that the Privacy Act’s routine-use exception permits the disclosure of information needed to verify citizenship or immigration status, as noted by RedState. Despite DHS now being subject to contradictory directives from two federal courts, Judge Wetherell stated that the settlement approved in his court remains binding unless it is overturned through the appeals process.
Florida has contended that losing access to the expanded SAVE tools hindered the state's ability to enforce laws requiring citizenship verification for registered voters. Ohio also challenged the changes, while Iowa reported that the removal of certain features complicated the process of verifying citizenship for professional license applicants, according to The Gateway Pundit.
Supporters of the expanded SAVE system, including President Trump’s administration and several Republican-led states, maintain that these additional verification tools enhance election integrity. They argue that the tools assist states in identifying individuals who may not be eligible to vote under federal law, thereby helping to maintain accurate voter rolls. Conversely, groups that challenged the SAVE expansion, such as the League of Women Voters, express concerns that broader citizenship checks could lead to errors, potentially misclassifying eligible voters as noncitizens and triggering improper voter-roll removals.
DHS has been ordered to submit a status report within seven days, detailing its compliance with Judge Wetherell’s ruling and providing any updates on the related litigation in the D.C. court. With two federal courts issuing incompatible directives, the dispute is widely expected to proceed through the appellate courts and could ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court for final resolution.
