In June 2026, Judge Sukhnanan ruled for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the SAVE system.
Posted by The Lawfare Podcast, Checked
- Sources
- 3 support3 context
- Said
- 1 time·
- Confidence
- 95%
The Lawfare PodcastSep 14, 2026
Multiple tier1 and tier2 sources report that U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan ruled on June 22, 2026 for the League of Women Voters and other advocacy plaintiffs, blocking the revamped SAVE system. The post's 'Sukhnanan' is a spelling variant of the same judge, and the later Supreme Court stay in September-October does not change the June ruling the claim describes.
What was said
… And theoretically, you can get back on by proving your citizenship, but, you know, there may be a time issue and so on. Anyway, they sue Judge this is in DC sparkle suknanan says, denies a preliminary injunction, but after fully after the full record and full briefing in June of this year, she rules for the plaintiffs and says that, yeah, there are significant rules in the Social Security Administration statutes about they make it very difficult for you to there are a lot of hurdles to sharing information with anybody, but even other federal agencies. …
The Lawfare Podcast · · from the transcriptPost →What we found
Supports. Reuters reports that U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan sided with voting rights and privacy advocates on June 22, 2026, and set aside the revamped SAVE system.[1]
Supports. AP reports that Judge Sooknanan ruled for advocacy groups challenging the SAVE overhaul, and the ruling was issued on a Monday in June 2026.[2]
Supports. Politico identifies the lawsuit as brought by the League of Women Voters and other advocacy groups, and reports the judge blocked the database in June 2026.[3]
Context. A September 2026 CBS report and an October 2026 AP report say the Supreme Court later allowed the database to be used on an emergency basis. This is later history and does not make the June ruling false.[4][6]
Context. The extracted claim's 'Sukhnanan' is a misspelling of the judge's name, which the post itself renders as 'suknanan'. The sources identify the same judge, so the referent is unchanged.[1][2][5]
Sources
6 sources: 2 fact-checkers, 3 tier 2, 1 not rated
- 1Judge blocks Trump's use of revamped immigration ...reuters.com · fact-checker · cited for: supports, context
- 2Judge blocks use of federal voter database to check ...apnews.com · fact-checker · cited for: supports, context
- 3Judge blocks Trump admin’s database of Americans’ Social ...politico.com · tier 2 · cited for: supports
- 4Trump administration asks Supreme Court to allow use of ...cbsnews.com · tier 2 · cited for: context
- 5Judge finds a Trump data system to verify voters is unlawfulnpr.org · tier 2 · cited for: context
- 6Supreme Court allows federal voter eligibility database for ...ironmountaindailynews.com · not rated · cited for: context
Where this claim was made
Said in 1 published post
Related claims
- Judge Sukhnanan denied a preliminary injunction in the lawsuit against the SAVE system.True
- Judge Sukhman Nanen issued an order in November 2026 indicating she was taking the plaintiffs' arguments seriously in a case involving the SAVE system.Can’t tell
- A judge blocked the Social Security Administration from using the SAVE database to verify eligibility for payments on June 22.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
- A federal judge in D.C. found in June that the SAVE system violated federal privacy laws and that the Department of Homeland Security had overstepped its authority.True