Hello, this is RJ Deakin, reading the Supreme Court of United States opinion in Department of Homeland Security versus League of Women Voters on application for stay. Uh September twenty-fifth, twenty twenty six. This is a per curium opinion. Since nineteen eighty-six, the systematic alien verification for entitlements save program has allowed federal, state, and local government agencies to verify the citizenship and immigration status of non citizens applying for public benefits. For decades it relied on records maintained by the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the Department of State. Last year, the federal government expanded SAVES scope. In March 2025, President Trump signed an executive order directing DHS to put new systems in place to allow state and local authorities to verify the citizenship of uh citizenship status of registered voters and individuals registering to vote. That was Executive Order 14248 at 90 Federal Register 1406. The Executive Order also directed the Social Security Administration, SSA, to make its records available to DHS for that purpose. Same thing except page fourteen thousand and seven. Two months later, DHS launched a modified save program. The modified program differed from the original in two key respects. First, it incorporated checks against additional records, including Social Security numbers maintained by SSA. Second, it allowed state and local authorities to conduct bulk searches of multiple individuals at once. Under the modified save program, a state or local agency seeking to determine an individual's citizenship status first uploads the individual's first name, last name, date of birth, or full or partial Social Security number to the SAVE portal. The SAVE program automatically discloses that information to SSA, which runs it through its databases to find a match. SSA then discloses its search results to DHS, including the individual's full name, data birth, full social security number, and citizenship status. Finally, the Save Portal returns a response to the agency, either confirming that the individual is a citizen or requesting that the agency resubmit its query with additional information. If the modified save program is unable to confirm that an individual is a citizen, the agency is required to contact the individual and request that he provide proof of citizenship to register or remain registered to vote. Various organizations, including the League of Women Voters, its local affiliates, and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, sued DHS, SSA, and other federal actors to challenge the modified save program. As relevant here, they raised three claims. First, they all allege that the modifications violated a confidentiality provision in the Social Security Act that prohibits the disclosure of Social Security numbers and other SSA records. Second, they alleged that the modifications violated substantive and procedural protections in the Privacy Act of 1974, which prohibits the non consensual disclosure of certain information and requires that agencies complete a notice and comment process for program modifications. Third, they alleged that the modifications were arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedures Act. The plaintiff organizations moved for summary judgment on all three claims. The government cross-moved to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiffs lacked Article III standing, that the modified save program did not violate the Social Security Act, Privacy Act, or the APA, and that Congress had authorized DHS in AUSC section 1373 to use Social Security numbers and related records, notwithstanding any other provision of law. The District Court agreed with the plaintiff organizations across the board, set aside and vacated the modified save program and its related notices, and denied the government's application for a stay pending appeal. A divided panel of the DC circuit also denied the government's application for a stay, with Judge Castus dissenting. The government now seeks a stay from this court. To succeed, the government must establish one, a reasonable probability that four justices will consider the issue sufficiently meritorious to grant Sir Girari, two, a fair prospect that a majority of the court will vote to reverse the judgment below, and three, a likelihood that irreparable harm will result from the denial of a stay. That's Hollingsworth versus Perry from 2010. In close cases, we balance the equities and weigh the relative harms to the applicant and to the respondent. We grant the application. To start, we consider the likelihood that this court would reverse. At least one of plaintiff's members, John Doe No. 4, is registered to vote in a state, Louisiana, that used the modified save program. She has demonstrated that SSA records do not accurately reflect that she is now a naturalized citizen. Supplemental declaration of uh Jane Doe. Um had the modified save program not been set aside, she likely would have been required to provide additional proof of citizenship. Such a need to take affirmative steps to avoid risk of harm constitutes a cognizable injury supporting standing. That's Mies v. Keene from 1987. Although the plaintiff organizations likely have standing, their claims likely lack merit. The plaintiff organizations claim that the federal defendants violated the Social Security Act, Privacy Act, and APA. In 1996, Congress, however, separately and expressly authorized DHS to request and receive information relating to citizenship and immigration status from other agencies, including the SSA, in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, IIRIRA. The relevant IIRIRA provision eight USC section thirteen seventy three contains two notwithstanding clauses. The first, Sections thirteen seventy three A provides notwithstanding any other provision of federal, state or local law, a federal state or local government entity or official may not prohibit or in any way restrict any government entity or official from sending to or receiving from the DHS information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual. The second section, 1373 B, which is captioned additional authority of government entities, similarly provides, notwithstanding any other provision of federal, state, or local law, no person or agency may prohibit or in any way restrict a federal, state, or local government entity from doing any of the following with respect to information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual. The following activities include sending such information to or requesting or receiving such information from the DHS. Section 1373 B1. By prohibiting interference with the disclosure of information regarding citizenship status to DHS, notwithstanding any other provision of federal, state, or local law, Congress necessarily authorized DHS to request and receive that information. Otherwise, agencies, entities, and officials could find themselves in the impossible predicament of either disclosing information consistent with Section 1373, but in violation of legislation like the Social Security Act and Privacy Act, or withholding that information consistent with those acts, but in violation of Section 1373. It is improbable that Congress intended to place officials in such a bind when it passed the IIRIRA. So Section 1373 likely supersedes restrictions on disclosure elsewhere in the code. There's a footnote there, footnote one. The dissent argues that sections 1373 A and B do not displace laws restricting information sharing with DHS because when a law imposes an express restriction on disclosure, it is that law, not an entity official, person or agency that is doing the prohibiting or restricting. Post at seven opinion of Justice Jackson. But the distinction that dissent draws between laws and those tasked with enforcing them is illusory. Sections 1373 A and B prohibit any entity, official, person or agency from prohibiting or in any way restricting the request for or receipt of information regarding immigration status. Those prohibitions necessarily include invoking a law to deny a request for or transfer of such information. Back to the text here. Lest there be any doubt, Section 1373 C requires DHS to respond to inquiries from state and local agencies seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual. Considered alongside Section 1373's notwithstanding clauses, Section 1373C appears to contemplate an information sharing regime, like the modified save program. In light of these provisions, this court is likely to reverse the district's court holding that the federal defendants violated the Social Security Act, the Privacy Act, and the APA. The remaining factors also warrant a grant. We have often granted sorti where a lower court has set aside an important federal program. See, for example, Bondi versus Van Der Stock from 2025, Department of Education versus Career Colleges and Schools of Texas, 2025, and on the equities, the federal government is likely to suffer irreparable harm absent to stay. Under Section 1373C, 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. The plaintiff organizations argue that the federal government will not suffer irreparable harm because federal law currently prohibits state and local election authorities from clearing their voter rolls in the weeks leading up to federal elections. The organizations point to the National Voter Registration Act, NVRA, at 52 USC, Section 20507, C2 CAPA, which provides that a state shall complete not later than 90 days prior to the date of a primary or general election for federal office, any program, the purpose of which is to systematically remove names of ineligible voters from the official list of eligible voters. There's footnote number two there. And that footnote is we will consider the scope of this provision in Republican National Committee versus me family familia vota which is number 251017, which asks whether the NVRA prohibits states from implementing programs within 90 days of federal elections to cancel the registrations of voters who are not U.S. citizens. The parties in this case do not ask us to address that question and have not briefed it, and we do not need to decide it here. Back to the text. To be sure, that moratorium limits the potential impact of staying the district court's order in this case. Still, all agree that the order prevents the federal government from using the modified save program to conduct individualized inquiries, which are permitted under federal law during this period. The District Court's order thus inhibits the federal government's efforts to assist state and local agencies in the proper administration of the midterm elections. Under these circumstances, the equities weigh in favor of a stay. For the foregoing reasons, the application for stay presented to the Chief Justice and by him referred to the court is granted. The June 22nd, 2026 order entered by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in case number 25 CV three five oh one is stayed, pending the disposition of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and disposition of a petition for writ of sortiari if such writ is timely sought. So should sortiari be granted, or should sertiari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event sortiari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this court. It is so ordered. Thank you for listening. Prison Journalism Product We're doing a free plug for the Prison Journalism Project here. Prison Journalism Project is a national nonprofit that teaches incarcerated writers the tools of journalism and publishes their stories. Keep up with them at PrisonJournalismProject.org and their newsletter, The Inside Story. If you'd like to keep track on some of the stuff that is happening in the prisons, those folks tend to uh tend to get some of the reports from inside the prisons that never make it outside about conditions and uh and things to that effect. Thank you again for listening. Uh, this has been RJ Deakin of Loki Esque Law, Montana.