Federal Judge Blocks SAVE Voter Database. Kentucky Has Its Own Voter Data Fight.

A federal ruling on voter-citizenship checks has direct implications for Kentucky’s voter data fight.

Jun 23, 2026

The Kentucky State Capitol in Frankfort. A federal court ruling on the SAVE voter database raises questions for Kentucky’s State Board of Elections, county clerks, and future voter-data agreements with federal agencies. Photo: Daderot/Wikimedia Commons, CC0.

A federal ruling against DHS’s expanded SAVE voter database matters in Kentucky because state law now permits federal election data agreements, and Kentucky’s voter rolls are already the subject of a DOJ lawsuit.

On June 22, U.S. District Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan vacated the federal government’s 2025 modification of the SAVE program, the Department of Homeland Security database that had been expanded for voter-citizenship checks.

The order came in League of Women Voters et al. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al., a federal case in the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs included the League of Women Voters, local League affiliates, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, and individual U.S. citizens. The defendants included DHS, the Social Security Administration, the Department of Justice, and federal officials.

The ruling does not change Kentucky voter qualifications. Kentucky law already requires voters to be U.S. citizens, Kentucky residents for at least 28 days before the election, at least 18 by the general election, and otherwise eligible under state law.

What changed is narrower and more specific.

The federal court blocked the modified federal database that DHS and SSA had built to help state and local election offices run citizenship checks against voter-registration records.

What happened

Judge Sooknanan granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs and denied the federal government’s motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. The court also denied Texas’s motion to dismiss. Texas had intervened because it had used the modified SAVE program in its own voter-roll work.

The court vacated three items: the October 2025 DHS notice modifying the SAVE records program, the November 2025 SSA notice modifying the use of Social Security records, and the modified SAVE program described in the DHS notice.

SAVE stands for Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements. It is administered by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services within DHS. Historically, SAVE helped government agencies verify immigration or citizenship status for benefits and licenses.

The court said the 2025 overhaul changed SAVE in three major ways. It added records of natural-born citizens, granted the program access to SSA records, including Social Security numbers, and enabled bulk searches rather than one-person-at-a-time checks.

Those changes followed President Donald Trump’s March 25, 2025, executive order, “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections.” That order directed DHS to provide state and local officials, without a fee, with tools to verify the citizenship or immigration status of people registering to vote or already registered.

The court found that the modified SAVE program violated the Social Security Act, the Privacy Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. In plain language, the court said federal agencies used private data for a new purpose without the lawful authority and procedural safeguards required by Congress.

How a federal database error can become a voter problem

Under the modified SAVE program, a participating agency could enter into an agreement with USCIS, upload a voter data file, and run bulk searches. The file could include names, dates of birth, full or partial Social Security numbers, and the reason for the search, such as voter verification.

SAVE then used that information to search SSA records. The court described how SSA results could include whether the Social Security number, name, and date of birth matched, and whether a citizenship or foreign indicator was present.

That design created the central problem in the case. A naturalized citizen may have applied for a Social Security number before becoming a U.S. citizen. If SSA records were not later updated, the voter could appear in old federal data as a noncitizen even though the person had become a citizen and had the right to vote.

The court found that some members of the plaintiffs had already been wrongly identified as noncitizens through SAVE. Some had to provide proof of citizenship within 30 days to avoid cancellation of their voter registration. Some had their registrations wrongfully canceled.

The point for Kentucky readers is not complicated.

A database error can become a voter problem when government records are used to decide who gets flagged, who must produce documents, and who may be removed from the rolls.

What changed and what did not

The ruling blocks the 2025 modified SAVE program and the DHS and SSA notices that supported it. That means the version of SAVE built for broad voter-citizenship screening cannot continue under the vacated notices.

The ruling does not say Kentucky must keep an ineligible person on the voter rolls. Noncitizens cannot lawfully vote in Kentucky. Kentucky election offices still have voter-list maintenance duties under state and federal law.

The ruling also does not resolve Kentucky’s separate federal lawsuit over the DOJ’s demand for voter-registration data. That case, United States v. Kentucky State Board of Elections, is pending in the Eastern District of Kentucky.

What the ruling does say is important for any Kentucky data-sharing decision. Federal agencies cannot take records collected for one purpose, combine them with other federal records, and turn the combined database into a voter-screening tool without complying with the privacy and procedural laws Congress enacted.

Kentucky already has two direct connections

Kentucky has two live connections to this federal ruling.

The first is the DOJ voter-data lawsuit. In March, the Kentucky State Board of Elections filed a motion to dismiss following the DOJ’s lawsuit against the Board and its members. The Board argued that federal law does not allow the DOJ to demand Kentucky’s statewide voter registration list.

The records attached to that filing show DOJ sought an electronic copy of Kentucky’s computerized statewide voter registration list. DOJ wanted all fields, including full name, date of birth, residential address, state driver’s license number, or the last four digits of the voter’s Social Security number.

Kentucky’s State Board pushed back on the request for driver’s license numbers and partial Social Security numbers. Executive Director Karen Sellers wrote that the Board needed clarification on how DOJ would comply with the Privacy Act and the Driver’s License Protection Act before releasing that protected data.

The second Kentucky connection is House Bill 139. HB 139 began as an elections bill, was amended throughout the legislative session, passed both chambers, was vetoed by Gov. Andy Beshear, and became law after the General Assembly overrode the veto. The bill was delivered to the Secretary of State on April 14 as Chapter 175 of the Acts.

The Senate committee substitute for HB 139 added language allowing the State Board of Elections to enter into agreements with federal agencies to identify and remove deceased or non-U.S. citizens from Kentucky voter-registration records. The official legislative record states that parts of the act take effect on January 1, 2028.

Earlier, HB 534 had included more explicit SAVE language. HB 534 passed the House but did not become law on its own. Its federal citizenship-verification concept later appeared in HB 139’s Senate committee substitute, which did become law.

That sequence matters for Kentucky because the state now has a future legal pathway for federal election-data agreements. The federal court has just said the main federal database built for mass voter-citizenship checks was unlawful in its modified form.

Share this with a Kentucky voter.

Who is affected

Every registered Kentucky voter has a privacy interest in how the statewide voter-registration database is used, copied, shared, and matched against federal records.

Naturalized citizens face a more specific risk. If older federal records do not reflect later citizenship, a lawful voter may be flagged as a potential noncitizen and forced to correct the government’s mistake.

County clerks and election workers may also be affected. If Kentucky uses federal citizenship data in the future, local election offices may have to process notices, verify documents, update records, answer voter questions, and handle disputes before an election.

Immigrant-serving organizations, voting-rights groups, legal advocates, and civic groups may see increased demand for help from voters who receive confusing notices or are asked to prove their citizenship after having already registered.

Taxpayers are involved as well. If Kentucky enters data-sharing agreements, defends lawsuits, updates voter-registration software, trains county election offices, or creates new appeal procedures, those choices will require staff time and public money.

The court ruling is a warning sign for Kentucky’s 2028 implementation path under HB 139.

If Kentucky enters federal data-sharing agreements, the public should know which federal database will be used, what records will be shared, how errors will be corrected, and whether a voter will receive notice before any removal.

Election integrity and voter protection should not be treated as competing goals. A voter-list program that removes ineligible records should also protect eligible voters from being wrongly flagged by outdated or mismatched data.

Watch the agreements, not only the headlines

Watch the Kentucky State Board of Elections agenda for any item using the words SAVE, voter-list maintenance, federal agreement, intergovernmental agreement, citizenship verification, DOJ, DHS, USCIS, SSA, KRS 116.114, or Acts Chapter 175.

Ask the State Board whether Kentucky has any current agreement, draft agreement, memorandum of understanding, computer matching agreement, or correspondence with DHS, USCIS, SSA, or DOJ related to voter-citizenship checks.

Request records from the State Board for communications with DHS, USCIS, SSA, DOJ, the Secretary of State’s office, county clerks, or the Kentucky Attorney General about SAVE, citizenship verification, federal voter-list data requests, or implementation of HB 139.

Ask county clerks how voters would be notified if a federal database flagged them as a possible noncitizen. Ask whether the voter would receive written notice, how much time the voter would have to respond, what documents would be accepted, and whether the voter could cast a regular or provisional ballot while the issue is reviewed.

Track the Eastern District of Kentucky case, United States v. Kentucky State Board of Elections. That case will help determine whether DOJ can force Kentucky to produce broader voter-registration data than the State Board says federal law allows.

Check your own voter registration at GoVote.KY.gov, especially after a move, name change, naturalization, or other record change. If you receive any notice from your county clerk or the State Board about your registration, save the envelope, keep a copy, and respond before the deadline listed.

Questions for the State Board and county clerks

What federal agencies has the Kentucky State Board contacted about voter citizenship verification?

Has Kentucky signed, received, drafted, or negotiated any agreement with DHS, USCIS, SSA, or DOJ for voter-list matching?

Will the State Board publish any federal agreement before it is signed?

What voter data fields would Kentucky share, and would driver’s license numbers or partial Social Security numbers be included?

How would a voter be notified before removal?

How would a naturalized citizen correct an outdated federal record?

Would a voter flagged by a federal database be referred to the Kentucky Attorney General, and under what standard?

Will county clerks receive written guidance before HB 139’s data-sharing provisions take effect in 2028?

Dispatches from Kentucky

Discussion about this post

Ready for more?