Judge Blocks DOJ From Using SAVE Database to Remove Voters
Judge blocks DOJ from using the SAVE database to remove voters from rolls.
Why it matters: Legal teams handling election compliance must note this ruling limits DOJ's tools to challenge voter registrations, protecting voter privacy and rights amid federal-state tensions.
- On October 9, 2026, U.S. District Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan issued an injunction against DOJ's use of the SAVE database.
- The SAVE database, designed to verify immigration for benefits, contains significant inaccuracies affecting naturalized citizens.
- Four voters filed suit after wrongful removal from rolls due to DOJ data requests.
- 18 states shared voter data with DOJ; 26 states refused, leading to dismissed legal actions.
On October 9, 2026, U.S. District Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan blocked the Department of Justice (DOJ) from using the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database to challenge or remove voters from registration rolls. The SAVE system was created to verify immigration status for benefits applicants, not for election management, and has documented inaccuracies that led to wrongful voter removal.
The case began when four naturalized U.S. citizens—Anthony Nel, Haley Smith, Linda Duckworth, and Ruth Nasrullah—were mistakenly flagged and dropped from voter rolls after their states shared data with the DOJ. The plaintiffs sued in April 2026 alleging violations of federal privacy and procedural rights.
Judge Sooknanan found the DOJ's use of SAVE data to maintain voter rolls unlawfully risked disenfranchisement. She wrote the government "knowingly relied on an inaccurate database" that fails to properly verify citizenship status. This ruling protects voters against being wrongfully removed due to flawed federal databases.
The DOJ sought voter registration data from 44 states; 18 cooperated while 26 refused over concerns about privacy and data misuse. Lawsuits challenging those refusals were dismissed by courts due to state sovereignty in election administration. The disparate state responses reflect ongoing debate between federal election integrity efforts and state control.
Virginia Kase Solomon, president of Common Cause, called the ruling "critical to protecting voter privacy and preventing wrongful disenfranchisement." She emphasized the importance for legal counsel and election officials to safeguard personal data while enforcing compliance.
The Department of Justice has not publicly commented on the ruling. This decision signals limits on federal agencies using administrative databases beyond their initial scope, especially when impacting voting rights. Election law teams should monitor related DOJ actions, state policies on data-sharing, and federal court challenges around voter roll maintenance.
By the numbers:
- October 9, 2026 — Date of the federal injunction blocking DOJ's use of SAVE database.
- 18 states — Number that shared voter data with DOJ as requested.
- 26 states — Number that refused DOJ data requests, resulting in dismissed lawsuits.
Yes, but: While the ruling stops DOJ’s use of SAVE for voter removal, states retain authority over their voter rolls, and some may still share data voluntarily under legal frameworks.
What's next: Legal professionals should watch for DOJ’s policy adjustments and potential appeals. States may revise data-sharing protocols and election compliance practices accordingly.