The DC Circuit panel that ruled on the SAVE system stay consisted of Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan, Judge Robert Wilkins, and Judge Greg Katzis.
Posted by The Lawfare Podcast, Checked
- Sources
- 4 support
- Said
- 1 time·
- Confidence
- 85%
The Lawfare PodcastSep 14, 2026
The stay panel was Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan, Judge Robert Wilkins, and Judge Gregory Katsas, who dissented; the claim's 'Greg Katzis' is a misspelling of Katsas, not a different judge, and the post's own 'Katzes' is the same garbled name.
What was said
… And the government says, No, that's okay. We'll just take our chances with the appellate court, where there's more Trump judges. They don't really put it that way, but they they appeal, and, um, so the DC. Circuit gets the case in that posture, and it's Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan, uh Obama; Robert Wilkins, Obama; and Greg Katzes, Trump. And that's how they rule: two to one, uh, uh, political lines. And the, uh, Judge Sri Srinivasan, for the majority, says, "I've never heard of i mean, you're seeking a stay, which is an EMER you know, an emergency petition, based on an argument you've never …
The Lawfare Podcast · · from the transcriptPost →What we found
Supports. The Supreme Court per curiam in DHS v. League of Women Voters names the divided D.C. Circuit panel on the SAVE stay as Srinivasan, C.J., Wilkins, J., and Katsas, J., with Katsas dissenting.[2]
Supports. Reuters reports the 2-1 ruling on the SAVE stay with Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan and Judge Robert Wilkins in the majority, consistent with the claimed panel.[1]
Supports. Democracy Docket and Benchlight identify the third judge as Gregory Katsas, nominated by Trump, who dissented from the majority.[3][4]
Context. The claim's spelling 'Katzis' (and the post's 'Katzes') departs from the judge's name 'Katsas' in the sources; this is a transcription error that does not change the referent, since Katsas is the only Trump-appointed judge on the panel.[2][3]
Sources
4 sources: 1 fact-checker, 1 primary, 2 not rated
- 1Federal appeals court upholds ban on Trump's bid to use citizenship data for voter checksreuters.com · fact-checker · cited for: supports
- 226A308 Department of Homeland Security v. League of ...supremecourt.gov · primary source · cited for: supports, context
- 3In latest win for voters, appeals court rejects bid to revive DHS voter purge database, for nowdemocracydocket.com · not rated · cited for: supports, context
- 4Save the Sound, Inc. v. FAA · Benchlightbenchlight.org · not rated · cited for: supports
Where this claim was made
Said in 1 published post
Related claims
- The DC Circuit ruled two-to-one against the government's request for a stay in the SAVE system case.True
- The D.C. Circuit appellate court denied an appeal to allow the Social Security Administration to continue using the SAVE database for eligibility verification.True
- A three-judge panel consisting of Judges Millet, Pillard, and Wilkins issued a preliminary injunction and a 705(a) interim stay under the APA regarding a government inquiry.True
- Judge Sukhnanan denied a preliminary injunction in the lawsuit against the SAVE system.True
- The Supreme Court granted a stay of a district court ruling that had blocked the Trump administration's implementation of the modified SAVE database for voter verification.True