Judge Sparkle Sooknanan Blocks Trump Admin’s Voter-Screening Database

American Greatness ^ | 23 Jun, 2026 | AG News Staff

[MtnClimber]

A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from implementing a voter-screening database that combined citizenship records with Social Security information. The ruling argued the effort violated federal privacy protections and resulted in inaccurate information being shared with states.

In a 75-page decision, U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan halted the administration’s revised SAVE database, a system developed by the Department of Homeland Security as part of an effort to strengthen election integrity and identify non-citizens on voter rolls.

“The federal government has knowingly trampled on the privacy rights of American citizens in a manner that threatens the sacred right to vote,” Sooknanan wrote. “This Court cannot stand idly by while that happens.”

The lawsuit was brought by the progressive League of Women Voters and other left-wing advocacy organizations, which argued that the administration unlawfully consolidated sensitive personal information and distributed inaccurate data to states.

According to the ruling, the updated SAVE system combined citizenship records with information from the Social Security Administration, creating a database that Sooknanan concluded Congress had not authorized.

The judge said states were granted access to the system despite concerns about the reliability of the information it contained.

“Since then, states have run their voter rolls through the modified SAVE system, and some of the Plaintiffs’ members have been wrongfully identified as non-citizens by SAVE, resulting in the cancellation of their voter registrations,” Sooknanan wrote.

The ruling immediately stops implementation of the revised system, which had become a central component of the administration’s election-security and immigration enforcement agenda.

Sooknanan concluded that the program violated protections contained in both the Social Security Act and the Privacy Act. The judge also criticized the administration’s handling of inaccurate records, writing that efforts to minimize the consequences of erroneous citizenship designations “border on the absurd.”

The decision is expected to be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

---

TOPICS: Society
KEYWORDS: ballotfraud; demagogicparty; democratcorruption; electionfraud; judicialoverreach; leftism; sparklesooknanan; unfitforthebench

[BiteYourSelf]

She’s a my little phony.😗

[BlueLancer]

Sparkle Farkel ...

[Migraine]

Thanks for the clarification.

[ladyjane]

There ought to be a law against foreign judges.

There ought to be another law to prohibit any judge with an unpronounceable last name. If the average citizen can’t pronounce the name they shouldn’t be sworn in.

Yes, I know, approximately 54% of adults in this country read below a sixth-grade level.

[b4me]

“three overturns”

3 too many. first time bad behavior, should bring some penalty. judges are only supposed to rule what is constitutional or not, not on whims or their views.

[Carry_Okie]

3 too many. first time bad behavior, should bring some penalty. judges are only supposed to rule what is constitutional or not, not on whims or their views.

Disagree there. There is enough room in the Constitution for legitimate differences in opinion, especially among appellate court precedents to allow for some disagreement. After three overturns, it's time for a review.