News chronological

The ruling was decided by a 6-3 vote along ideological lines.

In a 6-3 ruling along ideological lines, the Supreme Court has allowed the federal government to use Trump's voter verification database in coordination with states to find noncitizens.

Judge Gallagher ordered the parties to update the court by Oct. 2 on whether E.L.A. wants to return to the U.S. and, if so, the plans for his return.

In a Sept. 2 filing, the government stated that officials learned via an email from class counsel that E.L.A. had been removed to El Salvador. In correspondence the following day, they stated they were "considering appropriate steps to rectify the communication errors that led to ELA's erroneous removal."

The class-action lawsuit dates back to 2019 during Trump's first administration. It was filed by young asylum seekers to challenge a USCIS policy that restricted their ability to pursue asylum applications with the agency while they were in removal proceedings.

The judge found the administration in contempt for deporting a young asylum seeker to El Salvador in violation of three separate court orders dating from November 2024, April 2025, and July 2026. This was the second time the administration has been found in contempt within the same class-action litigation.

DHS General Counsel James Percival stated on X that the administration had to file an emergency petition in the Supreme Court to allow the use of government data to assist states in stopping noncitizens from illegally voting.

U.S. District Court Judge Sparkle Sooknanan concluded that the administration acted unlawfully and "haphazardly combined and repurposed" Americans' data, which included "unreliable" citizenship data.

Justice Jackson dissented by pointing to the potential for disenfranchisement. She noted that most states are barred from systematic voter purges within 90 days of a federal election, making it difficult to see how the government is harmed while proceedings continue. She stated that the harm caused by disenfranchising even a few lawful voters outweighs the "nonexistent harm" the government experiences by being prevented from taking an action it likely lacks the authority to take.

The League of Women Voters called the Supreme Court's decision "profoundly disappointing," arguing that it puts millions of Americans at risk of being unlawfully targeted by an "unreliable voter purge database" weeks before the midterm elections. Voting rights and privacy advocates had previously sued, alleging that the changes far exceed the authorized scope and functionality of the SAVE system.