Amicus Curiae Brief — Department of Homeland Security, et al., Applicants v. League of Women Voters, et al.

No. 26A308

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL.,

Applicants,

v.

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS, ET AL.,

Respondents.

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE TRAVIS COUNTY, TRAVIS COUNTY TAX ASSESSORCOLLECTOR CELIA ISRAEL, AND TRAVIS COUNTY CLERK DYANA LIMON-MERCADO IN OPPOSITION TO THE GOVERNMENT’S STAY APPLICATION

LYDIA BAILEY

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING

HALE AND DORR LLP

50 California Street

San Francisco, CA 94111

KEVIN M. LAMB

Counsel of Record

SUSAN A. MUSSER

PETER A. KALLIS

LAUREN NEWBY

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING

HALE AND DORR LLP

2100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20037

(202) 663-6000

kevin.lamb@wilmerhale.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................................... ii

INTEREST OF AMICI ..............................................................................................................1

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .....................................................2

BACKGROUND ...........................................................................................................................3

ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................6

I.

TRAVIS COUNTY’S EXPERIENCE SHOWS THAT USING FLAWED SAVE DATA

RISKS DISENFRANCHISING LAWFUL VOTERS ...................................................................6

II. A STAY NOW WOULD GENERATE CONFUSION AND INTERFERE WITH

PREPARATIONS FOR THE UPCOMING ELECTION.............................................................10

CONCLUSION ...........................................................................................................................12

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

i

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Page(s)

Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009)...........................................................................................3

Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006) .....................................................................................10

STATUTES AND RULES

52 U.S.C. § 20507 .........................................................................................................................10

Texas Election Code

§ 12.001 ....................................................................................................................................3

§§ 12.001-12.034 ......................................................................................................................3

§ 16.033 ............................................................................................................................6, 8, 9

§ 31.001 ....................................................................................................................................3

§ 31.004 ....................................................................................................................................3

§ 31.043 ....................................................................................................................................3

Supreme Court Rule 37.6 .............................................................................................................1

ADMINISTRATIVE MATERIALS

Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records, 90 Fed. Reg. 48,948 (Oct. 31, 2025)......................... 4

OTHER AUTHORITIES

Contreras, Natalia, Texas Confirms Some Flagged As Potential

Noncitizens On Voter Rolls Had Provided DPS Proof Of

Citizenship, Votebeat Texas (July 30, 2026),

https://www.votebeat.org/texas/2026/07/30/save-potential-noncitizensgave-proof-of-citizenship-to-dps ..........................................................................................8

County Intercensal Population Totals: 2010-2020,

United States Census Bureau (rev. Nov. 5, 2024), https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/intercensal-2010-2020counties.html ......................................................................................................... 1

Memorandum of Agreement between Department of Homeland Security,

United States Citizenship & Immigration Services, and Texas

Secretary of State (Mar. 25, 2025),

https://americanoversight.org/featureddocument/texas-secretary-ofstate-communications-concerning-voters-searched-in-save ...........................................5

ii

Texas Secretary of State, Election Advisory No. 2021-11:

List Maintenance Activity Involving Potential Non-United

States Citizens (Sept. 9, 2021),

https://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/laws/advisory2021-11.shtml ................................6

Texas Secretary of State Press Release, Texas Completes Citizenship

Verifications in the SAVE Database (Oct. 20, 2025),

https://www.sos.state.tx.us/about/newsreleases/2025/102025.shtml .............................5

Travis County Officials Comment Letter on Privacy Act of 1974; System

of Records, Docket ID No. USCIS-2025-0337-9354 (Dec. 1, 2025),

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/USCIS-2025-0337-9354 .................................2, 4

United States Citizenship & Immigration Services, SAVE,

https://www.uscis.gov/save (last visited Sept. 14, 2026) ..................................................4

iii

INTEREST OF AMICI

Amici—Travis County, Celia Israel in her official capacity as Travis County Tax Assessor-Collector, and Dyana Limon-Mercado in her official capacity as Travis County

Clerk—urge this Court to deny the government’s stay application.1 Travis County, located in central Texas, is the fifth-most populous county in Texas, with a population of

1,290,185 as of the 2020 census.2 The county seat and most populous city in the county is

Austin, the state capital.

Under Texas law, Amici bear significant responsibility for administering federal elections in Travis County. As Travis County Tax Assessor-Collector, Ms. Israel serves as

the voter registrar for Travis County, overseeing voter registration and voter list

maintenance. As Travis County Clerk, Ms. Limon-Mercado is responsible for administering elections in the county. The Travis County Commissioners Court—the chief policymaking, administrative, and budgetary authority of the county government—is responsible for ensuring that taxpayer dollars promote fair, efficient, and lawful elections,

including by mitigating liability.

Texas is one of the states that has entered into a memorandum of agreement with

the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to use the modified Systematic Alien

Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system for voter verification purposes. Amici’s

involvement with maintaining the Texas voter registration list during Texas’s recent

1

Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37.6, Amici state that no counsel for any party authored this brief in any

part, and no person or entity other than Amici or Amici’s counsel made a contribution to fund its preparation or submission.

2

See County Intercensal Population Totals: 2010-2020, U.S. Census Bureau (rev. Nov. 5, 2024),

https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/intercensal-2010-2020-counties.html.

efforts to incorporate the modified SAVE gives them firsthand insight into the significant

problems with that system. In particular, Amici’s experience using the modified SAVE

for voter registration, including their personal observation of the flaws in its data, make

them well situated to explain the significant risk that using SAVE data will result in removing lawful voters from voter rolls. Amici voiced their concerns in comments on DHS’s

proposed modifications to SAVE.3 Given their obligations to their constituents under

federal and Texas law, Amici have a vital interest in protecting voting rights and ensuring free and fair elections.

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Amici have grave concerns about using the modified SAVE for voter list maintenance. In their experience, that system has introduced flawed data and will continue to

do so, causing eligible voters to be erroneously purged from the rolls. Texas’s use of the

modified SAVE has caused county officials to expend significant time and resources to

verify faulty SAVE data. Their review demonstrated that SAVE’s information was substantially out of date. Indeed, using alternative sources, Travis County verified that at

least 10% of the individuals listed as non-citizens were in fact U.S. citizens, and it determined that an additional 21% were highly likely to be U.S. citizens. The true proportion

of citizens included in the modified SAVE is likely even higher.

The proximity to the election also strongly disfavors staying the district court’s injunction. Election preparation begins months before the election, and local officials are

3

Travis County Officials Comment Letter on Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records, Docket ID No.

USCIS-2025-0337-9354 (Dec. 1, 2025) (“Travis County Comment Letter”), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/USCIS-2025-0337-9354.

2

already engaged in time-consuming, resource-intensive preparations for the November

3 election. The last day to register for the upcoming election in Texas is October 5, 2026,

and early voting begins on October 18. Requiring county officials to verify voluminous

and flawed SAVE data on top of their election preparations will lead to less verification

and more errors. And it will disrupt their efforts to ensure orderly administration of the

upcoming election, which are already underway.

In deciding whether to stay the district court’s injunction, this Court considers the

balance of equities and public interest. Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 426 (2009). States’

continued use of unreliable SAVE data poses an unacceptable risk that lawful voters will

be disenfranchised. That is contrary to the public interest, as is disrupting local officials’

election preparations. To prevent those harms to the voting public, Amici therefore urge

the Court to deny the government’s stay application and allow the district court’s injunction to remain in place.

BACKGROUND

In Texas, responsibility for administering elections is divided between state and local

officials. The Texas Secretary of State is the state’s chief election officer. Tex. Elec. Code

§ 31.001(a). Among other duties, he “assist[s] and advise[s] all election authorities with

regard to the application, operation, and interpretation” of the election code.

Id.

§ 31.004(a). County officials, in turn, are responsible for voter registration and administering elections. Id. §§ 12.001-12.034, 31.043. The county’s voter registrar oversees voter

registration. Id. § 12.001-12.007. The tax assessor-collector of a county generally serves

as its voter registrar, unless the duties are assigned to another position. Id. § 12.001. The

county clerk administers elections. Id. § 31.043.

3

SAVE is “an online service for registered federal, state, territorial, tribal, and local

government agencies to verify immigration status and U.S. citizenship of applicants seeking benefits or licenses.”4 In May 2025, DHS substantially expanded SAVE beyond its

traditional use as a system to verify the immigration status of individual non-citizens applying for certain public benefits. Appl. App. 105a (C.A. Op. 2). Before those changes,

SAVE generally did not permit searches of U.S.-born citizens, relied primarily on immigration-related records, and could not accept bulk queries encompassing multiple people.

Id.; Appl. App. 14a-15a (Dist. Ct. Op. 14-15). DHS and the Social Security Administration

(SSA) modified the system to incorporate SSA data, permit searches using Social Security numbers, allow bulk verification of large datasets, and facilitate state efforts to verify

citizenship for voter registration and voter list maintenance purposes. See Privacy Act

of 1974; System of Records, 90 Fed. Reg. 48,948 (Oct. 31, 2025). During the notice-andcomment process, Travis County and its election officials warned DHS that using the

expanded system for voter verification would likely produce inaccurate citizenship determinations because citizenship information can quickly become outdated and SAVE lacked

sufficient safeguards to ensure accuracy.5 They further warned that erroneous matches

could wrongfully subject eligible voters to burdensome and intimidating investigations

and ultimately risk disenfranchising lawful voters.6 Those concerns proved well founded

when Texas began to use the modified SAVE for voter list maintenance.

4

5

6

U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., SAVE, https://www.uscis.gov/save (last visited Sept. 14, 2026).

Travis County Comment Letter 1, 8, supra note 3.

Id. at 8.

4

In March 2025, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (a constituent agency of

DHS) and the Texas Secretary of State entered into a memorandum of agreement purporting to permit her to use SAVE to “verify the citizenship and immigration status information of noncitizen and naturalized or acquired U.S. citizen registrants and registered voters within [her] jurisdiction for voter registration and voter list maintenance”

in Texas.7 On October 20, 2025—the first day of early voting for the November 4, 2025

election—the Texas Secretary of State issued a press release stating that her office had

“completed a full comparison of the state’s voter registration list against citizenship data

in the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ SAVE database” and that “those voter

files were provided to Texas counties, who will now conduct their own investigations into

the eligibility of these voters as part of their statutory responsibilities to remove ineligible voters from the rolls” under Texas law.8

A day later, the Texas Secretary of State’s office notified Texas counties that they

had received a list of registered voters who did not have matching citizenship information

in SAVE, and explained that counties should follow Election Advisory No. 2021-11 (List

Maintenance Activity Involving Potential Non-United States Citizens) for the individuals flagged as non-citizens on their SAVE list. That advisory requires a voter registrar

who has reason to believe a person is no longer eligible for voter registration to notify the

7

Memorandum of Agreement between Dep’t of Homeland Sec., U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., and

Tex. Sec’y of State, at 81 (Mar. 25, 2025), https://americanoversight.org/featureddocument/texas-secretaryof-state-communications-concerning-voters-searched-in-save.

8

Texas Sec’y of State Press Release, Texas Completes Citizenship Verifications in the SAVE Database

(Oct. 20, 2025), https://www.sos.state.tx.us/about/newsreleases/2025/102025.shtml.

5

person and offer them with an opportunity to provide proof of citizenship.9 “The registrar

must then cancel the voter’s registration if (1) the voter responds to the notice and the

registrar determines upon review of the response that the voter is not eligible for registration; (2) the voter does not respond to the notice of examination within 30 days after

the notice is sent; or (3) the notice of examination is returned as undeliverable with no

forwarding information available.”10

ARGUMENT

I.

TRAVIS COUNTY’S EXPERIENCE SHOWS THAT USING FLAWED SAVE DATA RISKS DISENFRANCHISING LAWFUL VOTERS

SAVE generated a facially implausible list of non-citizens that required further in-

vestigation by Amici. After receiving the list of alleged non-citizens from SAVE, Travis

County officials investigated the records of each of the 97 voters listed. Officials researched the origination of each voter’s registration application, reviewed citizenship attestations on those applications, and attempted to obtain citizenship status through alternative means such as other governmental entities that may have received proof of

citizenship.11

Of the 97 alleged non-citizens on Travis County’s list, county officials determined that

26 had registered to vote at the Department of Public Safety (e.g., when they applied for

a driver’s license), indicating that the applicant provided proof of citizenship to that

9

Texas Sec’y of State, Election Advisory No. 2021-11: List Maintenance Activity Involving Potential NonUnited States Citizens (Sept. 9, 2021), https://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/laws/advisory2021-11.shtml.

10

Id.

11

As noted in the applicable advisory, “[i]n determining whether a voter is eligible for registration in your

county, the voter registrar may use any lawful means at the registrar’s disposal.” Id. (citing Tex. Elec.

Code § 16.033(a)).

6

agency at the time of registration. An additional 39 people on the list had registered to

vote at places other than the Department of Public Safety but had driver’s license numbers associated with their voter registration records, meaning that their records had already been run against the Department of Public Safety’s own database and screened for

non-citizen matches.

After its initial investigation indicated that using SAVE flagged individuals for removal who are in fact U.S. citizens, Travis County attempted to coordinate with the

Texas Secretary of State and the Department of Public Safety to resolve these problems.

State officials repeatedly showed no interest in expeditiously verifying the accuracy of

SAVE records. It was only after Travis County repeatedly raised concerns for two

months that the Texas Secretary of State’s office finally provided additional information

about the individuals on the SAVE list, including whether they had previously provided

proof of citizenship to the Department of Public Safety.

Based on this data, Travis County was able to conclusively determine that at least 11

individuals on Travis County’s SAVE list (over 10%) were U.S. citizens, because they

had previously provided proof of citizenship to the Department of Public Safety. With

respect to these individuals, SAVE’s data was out of date and flawed.

The Texas Secretary of State also provided details about when individuals listed as

non-citizen, lawful permanent residents in the Department of Public Safety’s records provided proof of lawful permanent residence to the Department of Public Safety. That timing is critical information because an individual who provided documentation of lawful

permanent residence before they registered to vote may well have become a citizen in

the meantime. As it turned out, that was the case. An examination of this data showed

7

that an additional 20 individuals on Travis County’s SAVE list (21%) had registered to

vote after their most recent interaction with the Department of Public Safety and therefore could have subsequently become citizens and provided proof of citizenship when registering to vote. So even when supplemented with the Department of Public Safety’s

data, SAVE did not produce an accurate picture of which (if any) individuals should be

removed from the voter registration list. In total, those two sources of information alone

revealed that at least 31 of 97 individuals on Travis County’s SAVE list (32%) had likely

been improperly identified as non-citizens. And those are only the false records identified

using Department of Public Safety data—the true percentage of U.S. citizens on the

county’s SAVE list may be much higher.

Travis County’s experience is not unique. Since the district court entered summary

judgment in this case, the Texas Director of Elections has admitted that SAVE provided

“inaccurate information” to counties and incorrectly flagged eligible voters as potential

non-citizens.12 As a result, state officials have been forced to reach out to counties to

immediately reinstate affected voters.

Relying on the voter registration investigation process to catch errors in SAVE can

result in disenfranchising eligible voters. Under Texas law, the registrar must notify

voters whose registration is under investigation and inform them that their registration

status is being investigated. Tex. Elec. Code § 16.033(b). If the voter does not respond

to that notice within 30 days after it is mailed, the voter’s registration must be cancelled.

12

Contreras, Texas Confirms Some Flagged As Potential Noncitizens On Voter Rolls Had Provided DPS

Proof Of Citizenship, Votebeat Texas (July 30, 2026), https://www.votebeat.org/texas/2026/07/30/save-potential-noncitizens-gave-proof-of-citizenship-to-dps.

8

Id. § 16.033(d)(2). In Amici’s experience, this process burdens voters by requiring them

to provide proof of citizenship in a short time. Amici have observed that for some voters

the time required to gather the required information alone is prohibitive, while for others

the process itself is a deterrent. For example, Assessor-Collector Israel’s voter registration director has interacted with voters in the past who felt intimidated when they received a government document informing them that they must provide proof of citizenship. Many individuals did not understand why they had to provide proof of citizenship

again when they had already provided it to other state agencies like the Department of

Public Safety. Amici are therefore understandably concerned that sending out such investigation notices will deter eligible voters from voting altogether.

Moreover, not all counties have the time or resources to conduct thorough investigations of the type launched by Travis County in response to the Texas Secretary of State’s

transmission of the SAVE list. Many counties lack the time or resources to (1) undertake

extensive research or (2) acquire additional information from the Texas Secretary of

State and the Department of Public Safety. Voters in those counties may be removed

from the voter rolls improperly and very likely will not learn of their removal until they

arrive at the polls. This ultimately creates a greater likelihood that those voters have

been and will continue to be unfairly disenfranchised as a result of the modified SAVE.

Travis County takes its responsibility to maintain an accurate list of voters seriously.

The county voter registration office’s efforts to process the SAVE list, request additional

information from the Texas Secretary of State and the Department of Public Safety, and

carefully determine next steps involved untold hours of work.

9

Travis County’s voter investigation efforts demonstrate, at a minimum, that the

SAVE data is out of date and flawed and that using it creates a significant risk of disenfranchising eligible voters. Requiring voters who have already demonstrated citizenship

to one state entity to prove citizenship again based on flawed SAVE data burdens not

only Travis County but also Texas voters and may lead many to lose their right to vote.

II. A STAY NOW WOULD GENERATE CONFUSION AND INTERFERE WITH PREPARATIONS FOR

THE UPCOMING ELECTION

Staying the district court’s injunction is particularly inadvisable given the proximity

to the November 3 election. The National Voter Registration Act provides that states

may not carry out “any program the purpose of which is to systematically remove the

names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters” within “90 days prior

to the date of a primary or general election for Federal office.” 52 U.S.C. § 20507(c)(2)(A).

This 90-day period, known as the “quiet period,” is now in effect for the November 3 election. A stay permitting states to carry out list maintenance using SAVE before the November elections would contravene the policies behind the NVRA’s quiet period.

The NVRA imposes a 90-day quiet period during which states may not systematically remove eligible voters for good reason. Like the Purcell principle—that late-breaking judicial intervention must be weighed against the risk of “voter confusion and consequent incentive to remain away from the polls,” Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1, 4-5 (2006)

(per curiam)—the NVRA’s quiet period reflects Congress’s judgment that states’ efforts

to purge voter rolls should occur well before any corresponding election. At this stage,

local election authorities across the country have already begun preparing for the upcoming election. Election preparation is a time- and resource-intensive process, doubly so

10

when local authorities balance other nonelection responsibilities, as Ms. Israel and Ms.

Limon-Mercado do in their capacities as Tax Assessor-Collector and County Clerk. In

Travis County, voter registration officials are currently working around the clock to process voter-registration applications ahead of October 5, 2026, Texas’s registration deadline for the November election. Among other tasks, officials must enter data for new and

updated voter registrations, check for duplicate entries, and verify addresses and districts, sharing new information with the Texas Secretary of State’s office and Elections

Division. That work is particularly time-intensive because much of voter registration in

Texas requires processing paper applications. In total, Travis County officials will spend

thousands of hours on these tasks in the months preceding the voter registration deadline.

A stay will permit states like Texas to require local election officials to undertake

onerous voter list investigations in the coming weeks based on demonstrably flawed

SAVE data, thereby inevitably injecting last-minute confusion and errors. As Travis

County’s experience shows, verifying SAVE data is a time-consuming, burdensome, and

expensive activity. Accurately updating voter rolls using SAVE will require Travis

County to divert staff and resources away from critical election preparation to voter list

investigations. And that tradeoff will be even more severe in the many counties across

the country with fewer staff and resources than Travis County. Imposing these burdens

on county officials alongside other critical duties on a compressed timeline will necessarily

result in more eligible voters being disenfranchised than ineligible voters being removed.

This is not how free, open, and fair elections should be run.

11

Rather than disrupt election preparations now by authorizing a confusing scramble

by the states to incorporate flawed SAVE data before November 3, this Court should

allow the regular appellate process to play out and wait to address this issue when the

burdens on election administration are less acute.

CONCLUSION

The Court should deny the government’s stay application.

September 15, 2026

Respectfully submitted,

KEVIN M. LAMB

Counsel of Record

SUSAN A. MUSSER

PETER A. KALLIS

LAUREN NEWBY

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING

HALE AND DORR LLP

2100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20037

(202) 663-6000

kevin.lamb@wilmerhale.com

LYDIA BAILEY

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING

HALE AND DORR LLP

50 California Street

San Francisco, CA 94111

Counsel for Amici Curiae Travis County,

Travis County Tax Assessor-Collector

Celia Israel, and Travis County Clerk

Dyanna Limon-Mercado

12

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Kevin M. Lamb, a member of the bar of this Court, certify that on September 15,

2026, counsel for all parties required to be served have been served copies of the foregoing brief via first-class mail and electronic mail at the addresses below.

D. JOHN SAUER

Counsel of Record

SOLICITOR GENERAL OF THE

UNITED STATES

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Room 5616

Washington, DC 20530-0001

(202) 514-2217

SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov

NIKHEL SURESH SUS

Counsel of Record

CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY &

ETHICS IN WASHINGTON

P.O. Box 14596

Washington, DC 20044

(202) 408-5565

nsus@citizensforethics.org

WILLIAM D. WASSDORF

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

OF TEXAS

EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATION

P.O. Box 12548

Austin, TX 78711

(737) 226-4398

will.wassdorf@oag.texas.gov

AMAN TEWARI GEORGE

DEMOCRACY FORWARD FOUNDATION

P.O. Box 34553

Washington, DC 20043

(202) 448-9090

ageorge@democracyforward.org

JONATHAN LEE SHERMAN

FAIR ELECTIONS CENTER

1629 K Street NW

Suite 300

Washington, DC 20006

(202) 331-0114

jsherman@fairelectionscenter.org

JOHN L. DAVISSON

ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION

CENTER

1519 New Hampshire Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20036

(202) 483-1140

davisson@epic.org

/s/ Kevin M. Lamb

KEVIN M. LAMB