Press Releases
PRESS RELEASE: Federal Court Rejects Trump-Vance Administration’s Bid to Pause Ruling Blocking Unlawful SAVE System
July 10, 2026
Recent Actions in the Case Demonstrate that the Trump-Vance Administration Continues to Invade Privacy and Suppress Voting Rights
Washington, D.C. — A federal court has rejected the Trump-Vance administration’s request to pause a landmark ruling blocking its unlawful expansion of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program, allowing the decision to remain in effect while the case proceeds.
In the most recent decision, issued July 8, the court calls the government’s claims of harms “manufactured,” says that the government’s arguments “mischaracterized” the court’s prior conclusions, and says the government is “somewhat audaciously” trying to avoid the court’s order by invoking an inapplicable order from a court in Florida.
The lawsuit, brought by EPIC, the League of Women Voters, League of Women Voters of Virginia, League of Women Voters of Louisiana, and individual voters, challenges the administration’s expansion of SAVE to allow states to conduct bulk voter verification searches using Social Security information and other sensitive personal data, with frequently inaccurate results that have caused American citizens’ voter registrations to be wrongfully cancelled. Plaintiffs are represented by Democracy Forward, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), and Fair Elections Center.
On June 22, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, ruling that the administration’s expansion of SAVE is unlawful, violating the Social Security Act, Privacy Act, and Administrative Procedure Act.
The latest developments arise in part from a separate lawsuit filed by the State of Florida and several other states in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. State of Florida and Florida Department of State, et al. v. DHSchallenged the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) over the functionality of the SAVE system and was resolved through a settlement agreement requiring DHS to maintain the new SAVE capabilities that the plaintiffs in the League of Women Voters case were already litigating in the District of Columbia, including Social Security number searches and bulk upload functionality.
After the D.C. court ruled those SAVE modifications unlawful, DHS disabled those features to comply with the judgment. Florida then won an order requiring enforcement of its settlement agreement, resulting in conflicting district court orders governing operation of the modified SAVE system.
DHS asked the D.C. court to stay its June 22 ruling while it appealed, arguing that the Florida order made compliance impossible. The court rejected that request on Wednesday, finding that DHS created its own predicament by entering into the Florida settlement while litigation challenging the legality of the SAVE expansion was already pending. The D.C. court concluded that the government’s current conflict was the product of its own litigation choices — not a basis for extraordinary relief.
Following the Florida court’s enforcement order, the League of Women Voters and EPIC filed an emergency motion to intervene in the Florida case to defend the D.C. judgment. Meanwhile, DHS has appealed the June 22 decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and is again seeking to stay the D.C. district court’s ruling pending appeal.
“The court rightly rejected the government’s effort to keep its unlawfully bloated SAVE system alive through ‘gamesmanship’ and procedural maneuvering,” said EPIC Deputy Director and Director of Enforcement John Davisson. “The Trump-Vance administration’s ploy to repurpose Americans’ Social Security data and conduct error-ridden mass screenings of voters is exactly the kind of mission creep that federal privacy laws are designed to prevent. The court has made that clear twice now. We will continue fighting to ensure that privacy laws mean what they say and that Americans’ personal information isn’t weaponized against them.”
“The Trump-Vance administration created this crisis by unlawfully expanding the SAVE system to include records about every American citizen, and then chose to deepen it by entering into a settlement agreement that directly conflicted with litigation already pending in federal court,” said Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward. “A federal court has now rejected the administration’s attempt to escape the consequences of its own actions, recognizing that this predicament is one of the government’s own making — not a reason to keep an unlawful system in place. Americans should not have to sacrifice their privacy rights or risk their right to vote because the government ignored federal law and now wants the courts to rescue it from its own litigation strategy. We will continue defending this landmark judgment in the D.C. Circuit, in the related Florida proceedings, and wherever necessary to ensure the federal government cannot unlawfully repurpose Americans’ sensitive personal information.”
“As the court said earlier this week, the government’s situation is entirely ‘self-inflicted,’ and its litigation tactics ‘make a mockery of separation of powers.’ The order vacating the illegal modifications to SAVE remains, and we will persist in fighting to ensure the government complies with its legal obligations, which the court has already reaffirmed,” said Donald Sherman, President and CEO of CREW. “We look forward to continuing to vigorously defend our clients’, their members’, and the American people’s privacy and voting rights against the Trump administration’s repeated election sabotage efforts and contempt for court orders upholding the rule of law.”
The litigation will now continue before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit while proceedings related to the Florida enforcement order move forward.
Please contact[email protected] with requests for further comment.
###
ABOUT EPIC
The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) was established in 1994 to protect privacy, freedom of expression, and democratic values in the information age. Our mission is to secure the fundamental right to privacy in the digital age for all people through advocacy, research, and litigation.
Support Our Work
EPIC's work is funded by the support of individuals like you, who allow us to continue to protect privacy, open government, and democratic values in the information age.
Donate
Facts Only
* On July 8, 2026, a federal court in the District of Columbia rejected the Trump-Vance administration's request to pause a ruling.
* The ruling blocks the expansion of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program.
* The SAVE expansion allows states to conduct bulk voter verification searches using Social Security information and other personal data.
* On June 22, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled the SAVE expansion violated the Social Security Act, Privacy Act, and Administrative Procedure Act.
* Plaintiffs include EPIC, the League of Women Voters, League of Women Voters of Virginia, League of Women Voters of Louisiana, and individual voters.
* Representation for plaintiffs is provided by Democracy Forward, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), and Fair Elections Center.
* A separate lawsuit filed by Florida and other states in the Northern District of Florida resulted in a settlement requiring DHS to maintain SAVE's bulk upload and Social Security number search capabilities.
* DHS disabled these features to comply with the D.C. court's June 22 judgment.
* A Florida court subsequently issued an order requiring enforcement of the settlement agreement.
* DHS has appealed the June 22 decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
* The League of Women Voters and EPIC filed an emergency motion to intervene in the Florida case.
Executive Summary
A federal court in Washington, D.C. has declined to stay a ruling that prohibits the Trump-Vance administration from expanding the SAVE program's bulk voter verification capabilities. The court found the government's arguments for a pause to be "manufactured," asserting that the administration created its own legal conflict by entering into a settlement with the State of Florida while litigation challenging the legality of the SAVE expansion was already pending in D.C.
The central conflict involves two opposing court orders: one from the D.C. court ruling the expanded use of Social Security data for bulk voter screenings unlawful under federal privacy and administrative laws, and another from a Florida court ordering the government to maintain those same capabilities. While the administration argues that the Florida order makes compliance with the D.C. ruling impossible, the D.C. court characterized this as a self-inflicted predicament. The case now moves to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, with plaintiffs continuing to argue that the system weaponizes personal data and risks the wrongful cancellation of citizen voter registrations.
Full Take
The strongest version of this narrative is that the federal government attempted to bypass statutory privacy protections (the Privacy Act and Social Security Act) to implement a mass-screening tool for voter eligibility, and in doing so, engaged in contradictory legal strategies across different jurisdictions to maintain the tool's functionality.
This account is presented as a press release from the plaintiffs' coalition, which utilizes a high density of emotionally charged and adversarial language—terms such as "unlawfully bloated," "gamesmanship," "weaponized," and "election sabotage"—to frame a procedural legal dispute as a moral and democratic crisis. While the court's actual language (calling claims "manufactured" and "audacious") provides a factual basis for the frustration, the narrative extends this into a broader pattern of "mission creep" and "contempt for the rule of law" to mobilize a specific political and privacy-conscious base.
The root cause is a clash between two paradigms: one that prioritizes state-led voter roll integrity via bulk data cross-referencing, and another that prioritizes individual privacy and protection against government error. The underlying assumption is that bulk verification is inherently prone to "error-ridden" results that disenfranchise citizens, though specific error rates are not detailed.
If this narrative were part of a coordinated influence campaign, the playbook would involve framing a complex jurisdictional conflict as a simple "attack" on voting rights to generate urgency and distrust in administrative processes. The actual content aligns with this pattern, as it is a strategic communication piece designed to cast the administration as a bad-actor rather than a neutral legal entity.
Patterns detected: ARC-0021 Emotional Exploitation
Bridge Questions:
1. What is the specific error rate of the SAVE system's bulk searches, and how does it compare to other verification methods?
2. How would the government reconcile the mandate for voter roll accuracy with the restrictions of the Privacy Act?
3. To what extent does the conflict between the D.C. and Florida courts represent a systemic failure of jurisdictional coordination versus a strategic choice by the administration?
Sentinel — Human
This text reads like a direct report summarizing a complex legal procedural event, characterized by careful sequencing of conflicting court actions and the integration of specific stakeholder arguments.