Supreme Court Now Okays Trump's Plan to Allow States to Use Federal Databases to Screen the Voter Lists for Ineligible Voters

The Supreme Court had previously joined in the left-wing plan to delay implementation of Trump's Executive Order until it was late enough in the season that they could claim it would cause "chaos" to implement it so late.

Now it blesses not a screening of mail-in ballots -- that would still cause "chaos," I guess -- but the simple use by states (at their discretion; left-wing governments won't screen ballots) of the Social Security databases to discover if a voter is a citizen or not.

So this is a weaker version of Trump's plan, which left-wing states won't even implement.

The Supreme Court on Friday cleared the way for the Trump administration to move forward with its plan to use a modified centralized database to verify voters' citizenship. In a seven-page opinion issued just 39 days before the Nov. 3, 2026, election, the justices paused a ruling by a federal judge in Washington, D.C., that had blocked the government from doing so on the ground that it violated (among other things) federal privacy laws.

The unsigned opinion for the majority indicated that the lower court's order "inhibits the Federal Government's efforts to assist state and local agencies in the proper administration of the midterm elections."

In a dissenting opinion joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson called Friday's decision a "questionable interim ruling[] about two statutory provisions" that the Supreme Court "has never before interpreted." She also contended that the majority "focuses only on the harms the Government will purportedly suffer absent a stay, disregarding the harms that the" use of the modified database "has caused, and will likely continue to cause, to lawful voters."

If you're surprised to see the left-wing minority dissent quoted more than the actual ruling of the court, you must be new here.

The dispute dates back to late March, when President Donald Trump issued an executive order that (among other things) directed the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration to set up systems that would permit state and local governments to verify voters' citizenship and immigration status. Those agencies then modified 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.

...

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."

Boy lower court rulings sure are being highlighted here.

I wonder what the actual Supreme Court just ruled? You know, the actual newsorthy information?

...

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer went to the Supreme Court on Sept. 8, asking the justices to freeze Sooknanan's ruling while the litigation continues. Sooknanan's decision, he wrote, was 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 argued, 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 contended, 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."

I'm omitting the next three paragraphs, which extensively quote the plaintiff's arguments. Not a lot about the arguments that actually prevailed.

The majority rejected the challengers' contention that the use of the modified SAVE system violates the Social Security Act, the Privacy Act, and the federal law governing administrative agencies. It explained that in a federal immigration law enacted in 1996, "Congress ... separately and expressly authorized DHS to request and receive information relating to citizenship and immigration status from other agencies, including SSA."

The Supreme Court has also "often granted" review (another factor in determining whether to award emergency relief), the majority wrote, "where a lower court has set aside an important federal program" -- which, it appeared to suggest, the modified SAVE system is.

Moreover, the majority added, the federal government will suffer permanent harm (yet another factor that courts consider) if the district court's order remains in place. Under federal immigration law, the majority reasoned, "the Federal Government has an obligation to respond to requests from state and local election officials seeking to verify the citizenship of voters. The order below prevents the Federal Government from using the program it believes is best suited to the task."

Unrelated: Obama wants to create a censorship board stuffed with leftists and NeverTrumpers to patrol people's speech.

Say, Obama, if you're so against "disinformation," why have you not stepped up to condemn the lies about a "lynching crisis"?

Ever notice that the censorship police never object to left-wing conspiracy theories?

This left-wing pussy says that the UK must implement strict censorship policies to stop all of the "misinformation" people believe about the UK having a two-tiered police system and other such scandals, but can't name a single actual "misinformation" claim put into people's minds by Russia.

posted by Disinformation Expert Ace at 04:00 PM

| Access Comments