Uphold

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court on Friday upheld President Trump’s expanded use of government data to spot non-citizens who are registered to vote.

The justices granted an emergency appeal from Trump’s lawyers and set aside a judge’s order that blocked use of this data on the grounds it was error-prone, particularly for naturalized citizens.

Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented.

The decision will aid states that seek to scrub their voter rolls and remove those who are not citizens.

Several Republican-led states including Texas and Florida supported the administration’s appeal.

The use of the new database “allowed Texas to more efficiently, promptly, and economically ensure the accuracy of its voter rolls,” the state said. It was “able to run its entire list of 18 million voters” through the expanded system of checks “in bulk and for no cost.”

It’s not clear the decision will have much impact in California and other Democratic-led states. It is likely to have a limited impact in the month ahead because the law forbids states from purging their voter rolls in the 90 days prior to an election.

The court, in an unsigned opinion, said the law supported use of the data.

“The federal Government has an obligation to respond to requests from state and local election officials seeking to verify the citizenship of voters,” the court said. “The order below prevents the federal government from using the program it believes is best suited to the task.”

The administration said the Department of Homeland Security can respond to more than 1 million requests per day to check if a person appears to be a citizen or not based on Social Security records and other data files.

If not, state or county election officials may require these suspect voters to furnish proof of their citizenship.

However, states and local election boards are not required to conduct these searches. The administration also said its data reports are not final proof of citizenship.

Upholding these data searches “would not require states, candidates, parties, or voters to do anything,” Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer told the court. “It would simply make available to states additional information. … States that wish to use that information in the course of ensuring that only eligible citizens cast ballots this November should be free to do so.”

In dissent, Jackson said the court’s order creates the “risk that states might cancel the voter registrations of at least some recently naturalized citizens or force such persons to provide proof of citizenship before voting.”

The new system of voter checks is based on the 40-year-old Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, or SAVE, that was created by Congress. Then, the goal was to check if applicants were entitled to receive federal benefits.

Last year, Trump issued an executive order directing Homeland Security to expand the reach of SAVE to provide states “access to appropriate systems for verifying the citizenship or immigration status of individuals registering to vote or who are already registered to vote.”

It is a federal crime for non-citizens to register and vote.

Trump has long maintained that non-citizens are voting, but he has had little evidence to support that claim.

Voting rights advocates sued, contending the new “mass verification” system was not authorized by Congress and relied on data that is protected as private under the law.

In June, U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan, a Biden appointee, agreed and blocked use of the expanded searches. The administration has “trampled on the privacy rights of American citizens in a manner that threatens the sacred right to vote,” she said.

On Sept. 4, the U.S. court of appeals by a 2-1 vote refused to overturn her ruling, prompting the administration’s fast-track appeal.

The voting rights advocates, led by the League of Women Voters, had urged the court to stand aside.

“The government has recklessly created an error-laden master citizenship database that endangers millions of Americans’ privacy and voting rights,” they said.

The data searches are flawed, they argued, because they “only reflect a person’s citizenship status when they applied for a Social Security number. That status does not automatically update if the person later naturalizes.”

Texas admitted that the mass checks yield “some inaccurate information.” It said 2,724 people were cited as “potential non-citizens” among its 18 million registered voters.

In response, county officials had to check further to confirm the citizenship of these voters, the state said.

Last week, the Supreme Court dealt Trump a defeat when it blocked use of his proposed postal rules that could have prevented millions of voters from casting ballots by mail.

In a brief order, the court said Trump’s claims of power over states and their voting were “unlikely to succeed.”

But in the case of the expanded data files, the court said the law appears to favor the administration.

Mérida, September 7, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Defense attorneys representing Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores have formally requested the dismissal of criminal charges against them in the United States, invoking head-of-state and diplomatic immunity under international law.

In a motion filed before the US District Court for the Southern District of New York on September 2, defense counsel argued that domestic courts lack jurisdiction to indict, prosecute, or detain sitting foreign leaders.

Maduro and Flores’ legal teams emphasized that international treaties and long-standing legal principles shield active heads of state and high-ranking government officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, regardless of the status of bilateral relations between countries.

Lead defense attorney Barry Pollack asserted that the Justice Department’s indictment constitutes an unprecedented overreach of foreign judicial authority. 

“Under settled international law and long-standing diplomatic practice, foreign courts cannot exercise criminal jurisdiction over a sitting head of state,” he stated in court filings.

Pollack underscored that Maduro is facing charges for acts that would have been part of his official duties and that he “vehemently denies” the US prosecutors’ allegations.

The Venezuelan leader is facing charges of “narcoterrorism,” drug trafficking conspiracy, and weapons possession offenses. Flores has been accused of the same alleged crimes except “narcoterrorism.” Maduro and Flores were kidnapped by US special forces on January 3 following military strikes in Caracas and surrounding states.

Under the established trial schedule, federal prosecutors have several weeks to respond to the immunity case and the motion to dismiss.

Subsequently, US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein is expected to evaluate written arguments and hold an evidentiary hearing on November 17 to decide whether to grant the defense’s request or proceed to trial. In the latter case, the trial would begin in June 2027.

Legal analysts have argued that the sovereign immunity case is unlikely to succeed given the US judicial system’s tradition of deferring to the executive branch on foreign policy matters. Under the “one voice” doctrine, domestic courts follow the White House and the Department of State regarding which authorities are formally recognized as representing a foreign country.

The first Trump administration refused to recognize Maduro as Venezuela’s legitimate head of state following his 2018 reelection, instead backing the self-proclaimed “interim government” headed by Juan Guaidó. In 2023, Washington transferred its recognition to the defunct, opposition-majority parliament despite its term expiring two years earlier.

In March, the Trump administration recognized Delcy Rodríguez as Venezuela’s “sole leader.” As Maduro’s vice president, Rodríguez took over as acting president in January and has overhauled the Caribbean nation’s foreign policy in the months since. Caracas has reestablished diplomatic relations with Washington and strengthened ties with its global partners, including Israel, while distancing itself from historic allies such as China, Cuba, and Iran.

In his motion to dismiss, Pollack called it “incongruous” for the White House to recognize Rodríguez but not Maduro, who appointed her as vice president.

Venezuelan officials have not commented on the latest developments in Maduro and Flores’ case. After holding multiple rallies in the weeks following the January 3 kidnapping, Venezuelan authorities have significantly scaled back the public backing for the pair.

In a June interview, Rodríguez said that Maduro remains Venezuela’s legitimate president but stopped short of demanding his liberation, instead claiming that he has the right to “demonstrate the truth” before the US justice system.

In recent weeks, the Venezuelan government, through its official communications, as well as state-owned media channels, has increasingly dropped the “acting” label, referring to Rodríguez simply as “president.”

For their part, US-based international solidarity movements have staged monthly mobilizations demanding Maduro and Flores’ immediate release, including outside the federal detention center in Brooklyn where the pair is presently detained.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.