Biazzo Law Files Supreme Court Amicus Brief in DHS v. League of Women Voters: Modified SAVE, Voter Verification, and the 2026 Midterm Elections
Updated: 3 hours ago
By Biazzo Law, PLLC
Updated September 15, 2026
Biazzo Law has filed an amicus curiae brief in the United States Supreme Court in Department of Homeland Security, et al. v. League of Women Voters, et al., No. 26A308.
The case involves the federal government’s modified Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements program, commonly called SAVE, and whether DHS and the Social Security Administration may use Social Security data in a new voter-verification system before the November 2026 midterm elections.
Read Biazzo Law’s filed Supreme Court amicus curiae brief here:
View the Supreme Court docket here:
This case also fits within the mission of the Biazzo Law Government Oversight Program, which focuses on nonpartisan constitutional accountability, separation of powers, federalism, public transparency, lawful agency action, and the rule of law:
Quick Answer: What Is This Case About?
This case is about whether the federal government may use an expanded version of SAVE to check voter-registration and voter-list data using Social Security records before the 2026 midterm elections.
The Government argues that modified SAVE is a lawful tool that helps States verify citizenship, maintain accurate voter rolls, and protect election integrity.
The respondents argue that modified SAVE unlawfully uses Social Security data, violates federal privacy protections, risks inaccurate voter-eligibility flags, and could lead to lawful voters being investigated, burdened, or removed from voter rolls.
Biazzo Law’s brief supports respondents and focuses on a narrow statutory point:
8 U.S.C. § 1373 does not independently authorize the Social Security Administration to disclose Social Security records to DHS for voter verification.
The brief also explains why Congress’s election-specific Social Security matching rules in the Help America Vote Act create serious doubt about the Government’s broader reading of federal authority.
Why This Case Matters Before the November 2026 Midterm Elections
The timing matters.
The November 2026 midterm elections are approaching. Voter-registration deadlines, early voting periods, absentee-ballot processes, voter-list maintenance, and election-administration preparations are already underway in many jurisdictions.
If the Supreme Court grants the Government’s stay application, modified SAVE may be restored while the appeal continues. That could allow state and local officials who use the system to run voter-list data through the expanded SAVE process before the 2026 election.
If the Supreme Court denies a stay, the lower-court order disabling modified SAVE remains in effect while the appeal proceeds, unless later modified by another court order.
The practical stakes are not abstract. The case concerns whether a federal system using Social Security data can be used close to an election to generate citizenship-verification outputs that may then affect voter-list maintenance, investigations, notices to voters, voter challenges, or other election-administration activity.
A lawful voter should not lose the right to vote because of an inaccurate database match, outdated citizenship indicator, incomplete Social Security record, mistaken identity, typo, or rushed administrative process.
That is the nonpartisan concern.
This Is Not a Partisan Issue
Biazzo Law’s position in this case is not based on support for or opposition to any political party, candidate, or administration.
Free and fair elections require two principles at the same time:
Only eligible voters should vote.
Every eligible voter should be able to vote.
Those principles belong together. Election integrity and voter access are not opposites. A lawful election system must protect both.
Regardless of politics, elections should be won by persuading voters under lawful rules. No federal, state, local, or private actor should be permitted to distort an election by unlawfully excluding lawful voters, manipulating voter rolls, misusing sensitive personal data, or changing election infrastructure without legal authority.
That is why the rule of law matters before Election Day.
The Constitutional Framework: States, Congress, and the Executive Branch
The Constitution does not give the federal Executive Branch a general free-standing power to administer elections.
For congressional elections, Article I, Section 4 provides that the times, places, and manner of elections for Senators and Representatives are prescribed by the States, subject to Congress’s power to make or alter those regulations by law.
That framework matters in this case.
States administer elections in the first instance. Congress may legislate in the federal-election space. Federal executive agencies may act only within authority Congress has actually given them and subject to statutory limits Congress imposed.
The Executive Branch may enforce federal law. But it may not create new election-administration power merely by invoking general executive authority, agency convenience, or public-policy urgency.
That is the central government-oversight principle:
Election-related executive action must be lawful before it can be useful.
What Is SAVE?
SAVE stands for Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements.
Historically, SAVE has been a DHS system used by government agencies to verify immigration status or citizenship information for certain lawful purposes. Before the challenged modifications, SAVE generally operated through individualized queries and relied heavily on immigration-related identifiers.
The modified SAVE system changed that.
According to the filings, DHS updated SAVE so users could submit bulk requests and use Social Security numbers as identifiers. The modified system also allowed Social Security Administration data to be used in the verification process.
The Government says those changes made SAVE more useful because many natural-born U.S. citizens do not have immigration numbers and because States may not know alien registration numbers.
Respondents argue that the changes crossed statutory lines because they used Social Security records in ways Congress did not authorize and because the system could produce inaccurate or incomplete results when used for voter verification.
What Did the Government Argue?
The Government asked the Supreme Court to stay the district court’s order while the case proceeds.
The Government argues that DHS has statutory authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1373 to respond to federal, state, or local agency inquiries seeking citizenship or immigration-status information.
The Government also argues that modified SAVE does not itself remove voters from the rolls. In the Government’s view, SAVE only reports whether federal records can confirm citizenship; state or local officials remain responsible for voter-registration decisions.
The Government further contends that modified SAVE is important because it helps States maintain accurate voter rolls, verify eligibility, and protect public confidence in elections.
That is the Government’s position. Biazzo Law’s brief explains why serious statutory problems remain.
What Did Respondents Argue?
Respondents argue that modified SAVE was unlawful because DHS and SSA exceeded their statutory authority, violated the Social Security Act, violated the Privacy Act, and failed to comply with required procedural safeguards.
They also argue that modified SAVE creates real-world risks for lawful voters.
If federal records are incomplete or outdated, a lawful voter may be flagged as unconfirmed or potentially ineligible. That voter may then have to respond to a government inquiry, prove citizenship, defend registration status, or face removal from the rolls depending on state law and local procedures.
Respondents’ position is that the risk is especially serious because the case is unfolding close to the 2026 midterm elections.
What Did Biazzo Law’s Brief Argue?
Biazzo Law’s brief supports respondents and denial of the stay application.
The brief does not attempt to repeat every argument made by the parties. Instead, it focuses on a narrow statutory synthesis:
Congress’s later, election-specific amendment to the Social Security Act confirms that 8 U.S.C. § 1373 does not independently authorize SSA to disclose records to DHS for voter verification.
The brief makes three central points.
First, Section 1373(c) imposes a response duty on DHS, not a disclosure duty on SSA. The statute says DHS must respond to lawful inquiries seeking citizenship or immigration-status information. It does not say SSA must open its records to DHS. It does not mention SSA. It does not mention Social Security numbers. It does not create a new Social Security record-matching program.
Second, the Government cannot move language from one subsection of Section 1373 into another. Congress placed broad “notwithstanding” clauses in subsections (a) and (b), but not in subsection (c). Biazzo Law’s brief argues that courts should respect those textual choices, especially when the Government’s reading would displace privacy and confidentiality protections.
Third, HAVA shows Congress knew how to authorize election-related Social Security matching when it wanted to do so. The Help America Vote Act created a carefully bounded pathway for voter-registration matching involving state motor-vehicle officials, SSA, limited data outputs, confidentiality, use restrictions, and safeguards. Modified SAVE follows a materially different path.
The brief’s point is straightforward:
A general duty for DHS to answer citizenship-status inquiries does not silently create broad SSA disclosure authority for voter verification.
Why HAVA Matters
HAVA is important because it shows that Congress did not ignore voter-registration matching.
Congress addressed the subject directly.
HAVA allows certain voter-registration information to be checked through a specific pathway. It defines what information is used, which officials participate, what SSA may return, who controls the method, and what confidentiality rules apply.
That structure matters because modified SAVE does something different. According to the filings, a SAVE user may submit bulk requests using names, dates of birth, full or partial Social Security numbers, and other identifiers. SSA may return match fields and, in some circumstances, a complete nine-digit Social Security number to DHS. DHS then creates person-specific SAVE cases.
Biazzo Law’s brief argues that Congress’s decision to create a specific, limited election-matching framework is strong evidence against finding a broader, hidden pathway in Section 1373.
Why the Privacy Act Matters
The Privacy Act issue is also central.
Biazzo Law’s brief points to a notice problem: federal privacy law requires notice of routine uses when personal information is collected. The D.C. Circuit has treated actual notice as important to the routine-use exception.
The district court found no record evidence that respondents’ members were told, when SSA collected their information, that it could later be used for voter verification.
That matters because Social Security records contain sensitive identifiers. A system that repurposes those identifiers for voter verification raises privacy, notice, and statutory-authority concerns.
The issue is not whether election integrity matters. It does.
The issue is whether the federal government may use sensitive personal information for a new election-related purpose without the authority and safeguards Congress required.
What Other Amici Argued
Several amici filed briefs addressing different sides of the case.
Arizona Legislative Leaders
Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen and Arizona House Speaker Steve Montenegro filed in support of the Government’s stay application. They emphasized States’ interest in public confidence, federalism, stable election administration, and avoiding disruption during election season. They argued that a stay would provide clarity for States and localities as they prepare for the general election.
Texas Attorney General
Texas filed in support of the Government. Texas argued that modified SAVE improved the State’s ability to maintain accurate voter rolls. Texas said the updates allowed it to run its entire voter list through SAVE in bulk and without cost, which it described as more efficient than the prior record-by-record process.
Travis County Officials
Travis County, its Tax Assessor-Collector, and its County Clerk filed in opposition to the stay application. They argued from local election-administration experience that modified SAVE data was flawed and that using it close to the election could result in eligible voters being erroneously targeted or removed.
UCLA Social Scientists
UCLA social scientists filed in support of respondents. Their brief focused on large-scale database matching. They argued that bulk database matching can be unreliable without careful methodology, safeguards, and error controls, and that the modified SAVE system risked compounding known data-matching problems.
Lawyers Defending American Democracy
Lawyers Defending American Democracy filed in support of respondents. Their brief emphasized the sensitivity of Social Security numbers and related records, the statutory history of confidentiality protections, and concerns about creating a national voter-verification database using sensitive federal records.
Bipartisan Current and Former Members of Congress
A group of current and former Members of Congress filed in support of respondents. Their brief focused on the Privacy Act, Congress’s historical concern about centralized federal data banks, and Congress’s refusal to enact legislation that would have created broader national voter-verification authority.
DSCC and Senate-Related Amici
The DSCC and current U.S. Senators and Senate candidates also filed in opposition to the stay application. Their brief argued that the case involves claimed executive election authority not granted by Congress and that modified SAVE raises major privacy and election-administration concerns close to an election.
The range of filings illustrates why this case matters: it is not simply about one database. It is about federalism, privacy, agency authority, voter-list maintenance, election timing, and the risk of disenfranchising eligible voters.
What Could Happen If Modified SAVE Is Restored Before the Election?
If modified SAVE is restored before the November 2026 midterm elections, States and localities that use the system could run voter-registration or voter-list data through the expanded process.
Depending on how States use the outputs, several practical consequences could follow:
lawful voters could be flagged because federal records are incomplete, outdated, or mismatched;
voters could receive notices requiring them to prove citizenship or correct records;
local election officials could be forced to investigate large numbers of records during an already compressed election calendar;
database errors could produce confusion shortly before Election Day;
voter-registration status could be challenged or questioned close to voting deadlines;
campaigns, civic organizations, and election officials could have to divert resources to helping voters respond to government notices;
and public confidence could be harmed if eligible voters are wrongly flagged or if election rules appear to shift during election season.
These are risks, not final findings. The parties dispute the severity and likelihood of these consequences.
But the risk is serious enough to warrant careful judicial review before an election.
What If the Stay Is Denied?
If the stay is denied, modified SAVE remains disabled while the appeal continues, unless another court later changes the posture.
That would not mean States have no tools to maintain voter rolls.
States remain responsible for election administration and voter-list maintenance under applicable federal and state law. Federal and state law also prohibit noncitizens from voting in federal elections. The question is not whether States may maintain accurate voter rolls. They may and must.
The question is whether the federal government may use the modified SAVE system, with SSA data and bulk Social Security-based matching, in the way challenged in this case.
The Nonpartisan Rule-of-Law Point
Biazzo Law’s position is narrow and nonpartisan:
Election systems must be lawful, accurate, and fair.
Any administration should be held to the same standard.
A system designed to identify ineligible voters cannot lawfully operate in a way that risks excluding eligible voters without statutory authorization and adequate safeguards. Likewise, privacy laws protecting Social Security information cannot be brushed aside because an agency believes a new system would be useful.
Free and fair elections require lawful participation by all eligible voters, regardless of party affiliation.
Elections must be won fair and square by persuading voters—not by using legally unauthorized tools, inaccurate data, or rushed administrative processes that risk changing who can participate.
A Word of Caution: Election Litigation Is Not Over
This case is one of several recent election-related emergency matters involving federal agencies, executive orders, voter verification, mail voting, and election administration.
That does not mean every government election action is unlawful. It does mean continued legal scrutiny is necessary.
The safer nonpartisan approach is vigilance, not alarmism.
Courts, lawyers, election officials, civic organizations, and voters should continue watching whether election-related actions are authorized by law, implemented with adequate process, and applied in a way that protects lawful voters.
Biazzo Law will continue to follow these cases through the lens of constitutional structure, federalism, statutory authority, privacy, and the right of all eligible voters to participate.
Why This Fits the Biazzo Law Government Oversight Program
This case fits directly within the Biazzo Law Government Oversight Program:
Government oversight is not partisan. It is institutional.
The question is whether government power is being exercised lawfully and within constitutional limits.
This case involves:
federal agency authority;
Social Security data;
Privacy Act protections;
Social Security Act confidentiality;
HAVA voter-registration matching rules;
state election administration;
voter-list maintenance;
database accuracy;
emergency Supreme Court practice;
and the 2026 midterm election calendar.
Those issues matter regardless of which party is in power.
The rule of law requires agencies to follow Congress’s limits, especially when sensitive personal data and voting rights are at stake.
Key Takeaway
DHS v. League of Women Voters is a major Supreme Court emergency-docket case about modified SAVE, Social Security data, voter verification, and the 2026 midterm elections.
The Government argues modified SAVE is a lawful and important tool for helping States verify citizenship and maintain accurate voter rolls.
Respondents argue the system violates federal privacy and Social Security laws, exceeds DHS and SSA authority, and risks harming eligible voters through inaccurate or outdated data.
Biazzo Law’s amicus brief adds a focused statutory argument:
Section 1373 requires DHS to respond to lawful citizenship-status inquiries, but it does not authorize SSA to disclose Social Security records to DHS for voter verification. Congress already created a specific, limited election-related SSA matching pathway in HAVA, and that pathway cannot be bypassed through a broad reading of Section 1373.
Free and fair elections require both integrity and access.
They require preventing unlawful voting and preventing unlawful exclusion of lawful voters.
They require rules that are adopted lawfully, implemented carefully, and applied fairly.
Frequently Asked Questions
What case did Biazzo Law file in?
Biazzo Law filed an amicus curiae brief in Department of Homeland Security, et al. v. League of Women Voters, et al., No. 26A308, in the United States Supreme Court.
What is modified SAVE?
Modified SAVE is an expanded version of DHS’s Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements system. According to the filings, the modifications allow bulk queries and use of Social Security numbers or other identifiers to support citizenship-verification responses.
Why does this case affect the 2026 midterm elections?
The case could determine whether modified SAVE may be used before the November 2026 midterms while the appeal continues. That could affect voter-list maintenance, voter-verification procedures, and election-administration activity close to Election Day.
What does the Government argue?
The Government argues that DHS has authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1373 and related statutes to operate modified SAVE and that the system helps States maintain accurate voter rolls and verify citizenship.
What do respondents argue?
Respondents argue that modified SAVE violates the Social Security Act, the Privacy Act, and other limits on agency authority, and that inaccurate or outdated data could burden or disenfranchise lawful voters.
What does Biazzo Law’s brief argue?
Biazzo Law’s brief argues that Section 1373(c) imposes a response duty on DHS but does not give SSA authority to disclose Social Security records to DHS for voter verification. The brief also argues that HAVA’s specific election-related SSA matching provisions undercut the Government’s broader interpretation.
Does Biazzo Law oppose election integrity?
No. Biazzo Law supports lawful election integrity measures. The issue is whether election-related executive and agency action follows the Constitution, federal statutes, privacy protections, and procedural safeguards.
Is this blog partisan?
No. This blog is legal analysis. Biazzo Law’s position is that all eligible voters should be able to participate regardless of party affiliation and that no government actor should use unlawful or inaccurate systems to distort election administration.
Where can I read Biazzo Law’s brief?
Biazzo Law’s filed Supreme Court brief is available here:
Where can I view the Supreme Court docket?
The Supreme Court docket is available here:
Comments