Whether the modified Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program violates the Social Security Act, the Privacy Act of 1974, and the Administrative Procedure Act. Specifically, the Court must determine if 8 U.S.C. §1373 authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to receive citizenship information from the Social Security Administration regardless of other statutory restrictions. Finally, the Court must decide whether to stay a District Court order that vacated the modified program pending appeal.

• The respondent organizations lack Article III standing to challenge the program.
• The modifications to the SAVE program do not violate the Social Security Act, the Privacy Act, or the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
• Congress expressly authorized the Department of Homeland Security to use social security numbers and related records under 8 U.S.C. §1373 "notwithstanding any other provision of law."

• The modified SAVE program violates a confidentiality provision in the Social Security Act that prohibits the disclosure of social security numbers and other records.
• The modifications violate substantive and procedural requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, including the failure to complete a notice-and-comment process for program modifications.
• The program's modifications are arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
• The petitioner will not suffer irreparable harm because the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), 52 U.S.C. §20507(c)(2)(A), prohibits systematic removal of ineligible voters from rolls within 90 days of a federal election.

• The Court granted the stay, applying the test from *Hollingsworth v. Perry*, 558 U. S. 183 (2010), which requires a reasonable probability that four Justices will grant certiorari, a fair prospect that a majority will reverse the judgment, and a likelihood of irreparable harm.
• The Court found respondents have standing because at least one member in Louisiana would likely be required to take affirmative steps to avoid the risk of harm, which constitutes a cognizable injury under *Meese v. Keene*, 481 U. S. 465 (1987).
• On the merits, the Court concluded that 8 U.S.C. §1373 likely supersedes restrictions in the Social Security Act and Privacy Act.
• The Court relied on 8 U.S.C. §1373(a) and (b), which state "Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law," no entity or official may "prohibit, or in any way restrict" the sending or receiving of citizenship status information to the Department of Homeland Security.
• The Court reasoned that prohibiting interference with such disclosures necessarily authorizes the request and receipt of that information to avoid an "impossible predicament" where officials would violate either §1373 or other privacy laws.
• The Court noted that 8 U.S.C. §1373(c) requires the Department of Homeland Security to respond to inquiries from state and local agencies seeking to verify citizenship, which contemplates a regime like the modified SAVE program.
• Regarding irreparable harm, the Court cited *Bondi v. VanDerStok*, 604 U. S. 458 (2025) and *Department of Education v. Career Colleges and Schools of Texas*, 604 U. S. 1074 (2025), noting it often grants certiorari when a lower court sets aside an important federal program.
• The Court determined that while the NVRA moratorium under 52 U.S.C. §20507(c)(2)(A) limits systematic roll clearing, the stay is necessary because individualized inquiries are still permitted and the government's ability to assist in midterm elections is inhibited.