Lawyers for the League of Women Voters and the Electronic Privacy Information Center on Tuesday urged the Supreme Court to leave in place a ruling by a federal judge in Washington, D.C., that bars the federal government from using a centralized database to verify voters’ citizenship. Nikhel Sus, the lawyer representing the two groups, told the justices that, in violation of federal law, “the government has recklessly created an error-laden master citizenship database that endangers millions of Americans’ privacy and voting rights.”The filing came less than 24 hours after the Supreme Court rejected the federal government’s request to be allowed to implement portions of a U.S. Postal Service rule on mail-in ballots – which, like the database at the center of this case, the Trump administration said was necessary to combat election fraud.The dispute has its roots in a March 25 executive order that (among other things) instructed the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration to establish systems that would allow state and local governments to verify voters’ citizenship and immigration status. Those agencies then overhauled the Department of Homeland Security’s Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements database, known as the SAVE system, to include the records of U.S.-born citizens, to give it access to Social Security numbers, and to allow users to conduct multiple searches simultaneously.The League of Women Voters and the Electronic Privacy Information Center went to federal court in Washington, where they challenged the changes to the SAVE system. On June 22, U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan blocked the government from using the modified system, agreeing with the challengers that it violates federal privacy laws, the Social Security Act, and the federal laws governing administrative agencies.Sooknanan wrote that “the federal government has knowingly trampled on the privacy rights of American citizens in a manner that threatens the sacred right to vote.” Moreover, she continued, “states have partnered with the federal government to access the database and are actively removing United States citizens from voter rolls based on inaccurate information.”By a vote of 2-1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Sept. 4 rejected the government’s request to put Sooknanan’s order on hold while the appeal moves forward, but it ordered the appeal to be fast-tracked. The court instructed the litigants to propose a briefing schedule by Sept. 14, but the litigants later agreed that the briefing schedule should be postponed until the Supreme Court acts on the Trump administration’s request.U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer then came to the Supreme Court on Sept. 8, asking the justices to pause Sooknanan’s ruling while the government’s appeal moves forward. He called Sooknanan’s decision an “indefensible order that threatens the integrity of upcoming elections by vacating the federal government’s authority to internally use Social Security data when fulfilling its duty to respond to requests by States to verify the citizenship of individuals for voting and other purposes.” Moreover, he added, Sooknanan did not have the power to enter her order because the challengers do not have a legal right to sue, known as standing. Among other things, he wrote, the federal government is not the source of any injury that the challengers and their members might suffer, because the SAVE system “merely notifies the States whether the federal government can confirm citizenship.”In their filing on Tuesday afternoon, the groups pushed back against the government’s argument that they lack standing because the states, rather than the federal government, would be the source of any injury to them. That contention cannot be squared with the Supreme Court’s own cases, Sus wrote, which have “repeatedly recognized that a plaintiff has standing if ‘”third parties will likely react” to the government [action] “in predictable ways” that will likely cause . . . the plaintiff’s injury.’” “‘It is hardly surprising,” Sus continued,” “that additional voter verification and potential voter disenfranchisement is “the predictable effect of” the federal government incorrectly informing a state that an individual may be ineligible to vote.’ Indeed,” he concluded, “the government concedes this is the intended effect.”The groups also told the justices that the federal government was reading too much into a provision of federal immigration law – which, Sauer had argued, trumps any other federal law, like the Social Security Act or the Privacy Act, that might prevent DHS from obtaining or disclosing information. Accepting that interpretation, Sus countered, “would give DHS unlimited power to vacuum up millions of Americans’ sensitive information from SSA (or any other agency) and disclose it in bulk to states however it wants.” If Congress had intended to give DHS that “extraordinary power,” Sus suggested, “it would have done so clearly and expressly.” But not only has it not done so, Sus emphasized, but “several bills that would expressly authorize the SAVE modifications have failed in Congress.”Finally, the groups said, there is no real harm to the government if it cannot move forward with the modified system while the litigation continues. The pre-2025 SAVE system will remain in place, they stressed, and government agencies can continue “to use SAVE for individualized citizenship checks as they did for decades prior to 2025.” Moreover, they added, “[t]he government also lacks a substantial interest in operating a citizenship database it admits is error-prone and unreliable.”