DC DOGE  Personal Data Consolidation Challenge

A pro-democracy lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s new centralized database storing Americans’ protected personal information.

Background

The League of Women Voters filed a class action lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s creation of a “secretly consolidated” database housing Americans’ protected personal information for the purpose of purging voter rolls and opening criminal investigations. The database originated from President Donald Trump’s March executive order directing DHS to expand the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service’s Systemic Alien Verification Entitlements (SAVE) program to include Americans’ social security and voter registration data. Plaintiffs assert that the Trump administration violated the Administrative Procedures Act, constitutional separation of powers, mandatory official duties, and exceeded their statutory authorities. They seek to block further consolidation and use of the database.

Why It Matters

The Trump administration’s actions defy decades of laws passed to protect Americans’ personal information from interagency data sharing. The database includes, among other information, Americans’ medical, employment, tax, and citizenship records. Pooling this data into a centralized database is concerning on civil rights, privacy, and voting rights grounds, particularly as the commingling of disjointed data could result in citizens being wrongfully investigated for lawful voting and purged from voter rolls.

Latest Updates

• July 20, 2026: Parties filed their supplemental responses to the court on the impact of the League of Women Voters’ motion to enforce the court’s June 22 order in light of their motion to intervene in the Florida lawsuit.
• July 18, 2026: The district court ordered parties to file supplemental briefings on July 20 on the impact of the League of Women Voters’ motion to enforce the court’s June 22 order in light of their motion to intervene in the Florida lawsuit.
• July 17, 2026: Plaintiffs filed their reply in support of their motion to enforce the district court’s June 22 order.
• July 16, 2026: Plaintiffs filed their brief in the D.C. Circuit in opposition to the Trump administration’s emergency motion to stay the lower court’s June 22 order. The Trump administration filed their opposition in the lower court to plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the June 22 order.
• July 14, 2026: Plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce the court’s June 22 order blocking implementing a new database to purge non-citizens from voters rolls.
• July 13, 2026: The Trump administration filed a notice stating that the Social Security Administration has to comply with the Florida consent decree.
• July 10, 2026: The court ordered the Social Security Administration to brief on whether they are impacted by the Florida consent decree ordering the SAVE database reopen for 4 red states.
• July 8, 2026: The Trump administration filed an emergency motion to stay the lower court’s June 22 order. The lower court denied the Trump administration’s motion to stay the June 22 order blocking implementing a new database to purge non-citizens from voters rolls.
• July 7, 2026: The Trump administration filed their response in support of their motion to stay.
• July 6, 2026: Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the Trump administration’s motion to stay.
• July 1, 2026: The Trump administration filed a motion to stay the district court’s June 22 order pending appeal.
• June 25, 2026: The Trump administration appealed the district court’s June 22 order to the D.C. Circuit.
• June 22, 2026: The court blocked the Trump administration from implementing a new database to purge non-citizens from voter rolls.
• Apr. 6, 2026: The court granted Texas’s motion to intervene as defendants.
• Apr. 2, 2026: Defendants filed a combined motion to dismiss and their opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.
• Mar. 20, 2026: Travis County, TX officials filed a brief in support of plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment detailing the challenges of using the SAVE system’s “faulty” data to ultimately “disenfranchise lawful voters.”
• Mar. 12, 2026: Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment asking the court to permanently block defendants from operating the overhauled database and to “revert SAVE to its functionality prior to the overhaul and undo its effects,” delete data obtained unlawfully, and terminate all Memorandums of Agreements.
• Jan. 21, 2026: Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint.
• Nov. 17, 2025: The district court denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction citing failure to demonstrate irreparable injury, even though the court “doubt[ed] the lawfulness of the Government’s actions.”
• Oct. 29, 2025: Plaintiffs produced a supplemental briefing showing how the SAVE program is already harming eligible voters.
• Oct. 28, 2025: The court heard arguments on plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, and plaintiffs to produce a supplemental briefing to show the SAVE program was already harming actual eligible voters.
• Oct. 27, 2025: The state of Texas seeks to intervene.
• Oct. 14, 2025: The court denied defendants’ motion to pause proceedings.
• Oct. 8, 2025: Defendants filed a motion to pause proceeding pending the end of the government shutdown.
• Oct. 7, 2025: Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction.
• Sept. 30, 2025: Plaintiffs filed their complaint.