A decision handed down by a federal judge this Monday considered illegal the federal database SAVE (Systematic Verification of Aliens for Benefits), used by the state of Mississippi to confirm the citizenship of voters. The determination establishes that the system, modified during President Donald Trump’s administration, cannot be used in its current configuration.
U.S. District Court Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan agreed with the argument of advocacy groups, who said recent changes to the program collected sensitive personal data from U.S. citizens, creating the risk of improper voter deletion from the rolls.
Sooknanan expressed in the order that “the federal government has deliberately violated the privacy rights of American citizens in a way that threatens the sacred right to vote.” The judge emphasized that the court cannot remain inert in such a situation.
Impacts of the ruling in Mississippi and the SHIELD law
The immediate impact of the measure in Mississippi remains unclear. Earlier this year, Governor Tate Reeves signed into law the SHIELD Act, which authorizes the secretary of state to integrate the state’s complete voter registration into the SAVE database.
The legislation establishes that voters identified through the verification process must receive a notification from the state and will have 30 days to present proof of American citizenship, guaranteeing approval of their registration.
Additionally, the SHIELD Act requires the secretary of state to verify voter registration against the SAVE database no later than 180 days before any regular federal election.
The office of Secretary of State Michael Watson was approached by the Mississippi Free Press for comment on the situation, but there was no response at the time of original publication.
Arguments about privacy violation and political backlash
Judge Sooknanan pointed out that Congress had already expressly prohibited the government from centralizing Americans’ personally identifiable information. She stated that the federal agencies responsible for creating the SAVE program were aware that the database violated these legal safeguards.
The ruling represents a significant legal setback for President Donald Trump in his efforts to instrumentalize federal agencies. He sought to promote a nationwide repression against foreigners allegedly illegally registered on state electoral rolls. The modified SAVE system was a central pillar of the Republican’s second election executive order signed this year aimed at overhauling federal elections, and now its future is uncertain.
James Percival, general counsel at the Department of Homeland Security, commented on the decision in a social media post: “It’s incredible how the left fights with all their might to stop us from solving problems they insist don’t exist.”
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) indicated Percival’s publication as its position on the decision. The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
History of the SAVE system and the legal challenge
The SAVE program was established under an immigration law that gives DHS the responsibility to assist federal, state, and local agencies in preventing the granting of government benefits to noncitizens. Since the Trump administration significantly expanded its search capabilities starting in April 2025, at least 25 states, including Mississippi, use it to verify their voter records. The program has already analyzed more than 67 million records, but critics have expressed concern that it could result in the exclusion of valid voters.
The plaintiffs, which include the League of Women Voters, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, and five unnamed U.S. citizens, alleged that the revamped SAVE violated Americans’ privacy and voting rights. The groups also pointed out that the Trump administration violated federal privacy laws by ignoring transparency requirements related to changes to the system.
The judge wrote that the agencies involved struggled to comply with an Executive Order that aimed to “reshape federal elections” by directing them to create a system for mass voter verification. She added that there was a “disorderly” combination and reuse of private information from millions of Americans, including citizenship data that was known to be unreliable.
Nikhel Sus, attorney for the plaintiffs, warned the court during the October hearing that naturalized citizens are at a heightened risk of being improperly removed from the voter rolls.
“They are particularly vulnerable to database errors,” said Sus, who is an attorney with Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
On Monday, Sus described Sooknanan’s decision as an “overall victory.” She noted that the plaintiffs were pleased that the court ruling reaffirmed the argument that the federal government does not have implied authority to freely share sensitive data among its agencies.