“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case?
Voting rights groups challenged a Trump program to use a federal database to help with voter purges.
What happened in this case?
Last year, the Trump Administration modified the database used for the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program so it could be used to detect individuals registered to vote who are not citizens. The League of Women Voters and other groups, concerned about inaccuracies and other problems, filed suit to challenge the use of the SAVE database to purge voters. A DC federal district court agreed with the challengers and stopped the Trump Administration’s proposed use of the SAVE database. Both the district court and the court of appeals refused to stay the decision as the case went forward. The government sought a stay from the Supreme Court.
In late September, in an unsigned opinion, Trump justices Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Barrett joined with Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito and Thomas to grant the stay requested by the government in Department of Homeland Security v League of Women Voters. Justices Jackson, Sotomayor and Kagan dissented. The majority maintained that the relevant federal laws authorized DHS to obtain and maintain the relevant citizenship information in the SAVE database,
Why did Justice Jackson dissent?
In her dissent for herself and Justices Kagan and Sotomayor, Justice Jackson criticized the majority opinion for “disregarding the harms” that the modified SAVE system “has caused, and will likely continue to cause, to lawful voters” by disqualifying registered voters who are in fact citizens and in violation of federal privacy laws. This harm is limited for now, she pointed out, since other federal law allows only “individualized” voter purges this close to an election. But, the harm caused by disenfranchising “even a few lawful voters,” she concluded, “outweighs the nonexistent harm” to the government in this case.
Why is the decision harmful?
The decision made possible by Trump justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett will allow use of the modified and inaccurate SAVE database to disqualify registered voters, even though the number of such disqualified voters in the immediate future should be limited as discussed above. Over the long run, the ruling puts at risk millions of voters who could be challenged using the flawed SAVE database in future elections. The case also illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.