Judge Sukhman Nanen issued an order in November 2026 indicating she was taking the plaintiffs' arguments seriously in a case involving the SAVE system.
Posted by The Lawfare Podcast, Checked
- Sources
- 6 context
- Said
- 1 time·
- Confidence
- 20%
The Lawfare PodcastSep 14, 2026
The claim departs from the passage: the post says "in November" while describing events of the 2024 election cycle, not November 2026, so the extraction added the year. None of the sources mention Judge Sukhman Nanen or an order by her in a Florida SAVE case; the SAVE rulings they cover were by Judge Sparkle Sooknanan in D.C.
What was said
… just before the election, Florida brought a case in the Northern District of Florida against DHS, saying, "You must improve your SAVE system," and then Trump won the election, and there was just a series of postponements. Nothing happened in that case. And then, in November, Judge Sukhman Nanen tipped her hand. She said, you know, she said in some setting i forget what the order was that there was a, like, she was begin it was clear that she there was she was taking very seriously the plaintiffs' arguments by then. And about a week later, there's a flurry of activity, and the government and Florida settle their case in the Northern District. The DHS in Florida, uh, together with three new states that join in: Ohio, Indiana, and, uh, Iowa. …
The Lawfare Podcast · · from the transcriptPost →What we found
Context. The passage's timeline (a late-October Florida suit "just before the election," then Trump winning the election) points to November 2024, not November 2026, so the claim's date is not what the post says.
Context. The sources on the SAVE litigation name Judge Sparkle Sooknanan (D.D.C.) and the Supreme Court's September 25, 2026 stay; none mention a Judge Sukhman Nanen or a Northern District of Florida order taking plaintiffs' arguments seriously.[1][2][3][4]
Context. The Florida consent-decree and Judge Wetherell matters described in the passage are not covered by any provided source, so the referent and the November order cannot be checked.[5][6]
Sources
6 sources: 1 fact-checker, 1 tier 1, 1 tier 2, 3 not rated
- 1Supreme Court allows use of Trump's SAVE voter ...apnews.com · fact-checker · cited for: context
- 2Supreme Court, overall liberal dissents, lets DHS overhaul ...thehill.com · tier 1 · cited for: context
- 3Supreme Court allows Trump administration to use SAVE ...cbsnews.com · tier 2 · cited for: context
- 4Supreme Court lets Trump administration use SAVE ...yahoo.com · not rated · cited for: context
- 5A guide to the biggest lawsuits plaguing the midterm elections so farwashingtonexaminer.com · not rated · cited for: context
- 6Tag: SAVE systemnews.ballotpedia.org · not rated · cited for: context
Where this claim was made
Said in 1 published post
Related claims
- In June 2026, Judge Sukhnanan ruled for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the SAVE system.True
- Judge Sukhnanan denied a preliminary injunction in the lawsuit against the SAVE system.True
- Florida brought a case in the Northern District of Florida against the Department of Homeland Security in late October 2026 regarding the SAVE system.Mixed
- The DC Circuit ruled two-to-one against the government's request for a stay in the SAVE system case.True
- Judge T. Kent Wetherell II issued an injunction requiring the Department of Homeland Security to provide Modified SAVE to Florida, Ohio, Indiana, and Iowa.True