A federal appeals court has rejected the Trump administration’s effort to use a federal immigration database. The administration wanted to verify citizenship information on state voter rolls.
In a 2-1 ruling on Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit refused to lift a lower court order. That order blocks the Department of Homeland Security from using its Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, known as SAVE.
The lower court had also blocked the database ahead of the November 3 midterm elections. Those elections will see Trump’s Republican Party defend narrow majorities in both chambers of Congress.
Appeals Court Raises Privacy Concerns
Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan and U.S. Circuit Judge Robert Wilkins supported the lower court’s decision. Both judges were appointed by former President Barack Obama.
The judges said the SAVE system conflicts with the Social Security Act. They pointed to the sharing of private information belonging to millions of Americans.
Moreover, the judges raised concerns about inaccurate citizenship data. Errors could force eligible voters to provide additional proof of their citizenship.
In some cases, inaccurate records could even cause voters to lose their registration. As a result, the judges said the system could create problems for eligible voters.
U.S. Circuit Judge Gregory Katsas disagreed with the majority. President Donald Trump appointed Katsas to the appeals court.
Legal Fight Over Voter Rolls Continues
Meanwhile, the ruling is part of a wider legal battle. The Trump administration has sought greater access to federal databases for checking voter registration records.
In July, a federal judge in Florida ordered the Department of Homeland Security to restore access to the SAVE database for four Republican-led states. However, another judge had already blocked those states from using the system nationwide.
The dispute has now placed voter registration, immigration records and privacy protections at the center of the legal battle.
For now, the appeals court ruling keeps the lower court’s restriction in place. The wider dispute, however, continues through the federal courts.
