BBCUnited States
Goldstein: -6.5CAMEO 13
US Supreme Court allows Trump to use controversial database to check voter citizenship
- Published
The US Supreme Court has lifted restrictions on the Trump administration using a controversial federal database that relies on citizenship information and other sensitive data to identify voters suspected of being non-citizens.
Critics have questioned the reliability of the data, warning it could result in US citizens being wrongly removed from electoral rolls.
In June, a federal judge ruled that the system was illegal and violated the privacy rights of Americans.
But the top court's conservative majority ruled that the National Voter Registration Act prohibited broad purges of voter rolls in the weeks before an election, thus limiting any "potential impact" of the decision ahead of the midterms.
States can still check the citizenship of individual voters.
The three liberal-leaning justices on the Supreme Court dissented from the majority decision.
One of the dissenting Supreme Court justices, Ketanji Brown Jackson, expressed concern that this could mistakenly revoke the voting rights of eligible voters.
"The harm caused by burdening or disenfranchising even a few lawful voters outweighs the non-existent harm that the government experiences when it is prevented from taking an action that it likely lacks the authority to take," she wrote.
The Department of Homeland Security programme, known as Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (Save), allows officials to verify the eligibility of voters on their rolls.
The database was first created in 1986 to help officials verify the citizenship or immigration status of those applying for public benefits.
But the Trump administration last year expanded its search capabilities by allowing bulk searches using sensitive information from Social Security rolls.
In June, however, US District Judge Sparkle L Soonnan - a Biden-appointee - ruled that the revamped system showed that the federal government "knowingly trampled on the privacy rights" of US citizens "in a manner that threatens the sacred right to vote".
A federal appeals court allowed her ruling to stand, only to be overridden by the Supreme Court on Friday.
The top court ruled that a 1996 law allows DHS to seek citizenship and immigration data from federal agencies and has "an obligation to respond" to states seeking that information.
The use of the Save programme by individual states is voluntary.
The previous judge's order, the Supreme Court ruled, "prevents the federal government from using the programme it believes is best suited to the task".
Voting rights groups called the ruling "profoundly disappointing".
"It puts millions of Americans at risk of being unlawfully targeted by the administration's unreliable voter purge database weeks before the midterm elections," the League of Women Voters, the lead plaintiff in the case, said in a statement.
"We will be doing everything in our power to protect Americans' voting and privacy rights by ensuring that the district court decision stands."
Lawyers for the Trump administration have long argued that the system is lawful and necessary to prevent non-citizens from voting. A total of 27 states currently use the system to check voter citizenship.
Critics, however, have pointed to a number of cases of the system already having led to mistakes.
For example, officials in Travis County, Texas, found that of nearly 100 voters identified as non-citizens, at least 10% of them - and potentially more - were US citizens, according to US media reports.
Since the state began checking its voter rolls with the Save system last year, only three non-citizen voters have been charged with illegally voting in Texas.
Some states, like Georgia, have worked with the government on the Save programme.
Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, has touted his office's work with the programme and his recommendations to improve the system.
Raffensperger told the BBC that his office thoroughly vetted the government-provided data to determine whether flagged individuals were non-citizens, even interviewsing some of the voters in question to ensure accuracy.
"There's always guardrails in place, to make sure that we never denied the right to vote," Raffensperger said.
Since returning to the White House in January last year, the Trump administration has sought to reform the US electoral system, a process that has included a bid - rejected by the Supreme Court - to rein in mail-in ballots.
In 2024, for example, Texas Governor Greg Abbott announced that 1,930 people with a "voter history" had been removed from electoral rolls out of a total of nearly 18 million registered voters.
The figures are far below the hundreds of thousands of non-citizen voters that Trump and the Department of Homeland Security have previously suggested were on voter rolls.
Additional reporting by Kayla Epstein
Open article →NBCUnited States
Goldstein: 0.0CAMEO 01
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday permitted the Trump administration to use an expanded federal database containing citizenship information, as the president encourages states to purge people from voter rolls.
The justices, divided 6-3 on ideological lines with conservatives in the majority, granted an emergency request filed by the government after lower courts ruled that the Trump administration’s changes to the database were likely unlawful.
Critics have said the data is unreliable and could lead to U.S. citizens being kicked off the voter rolls.
But the court noted in its unsigned ruling that the National Voter Registration Act bars the broad purging of voter rolls in the weeks leading up to an election, which “limits the potential impact” of the decision this year. States can still make individualized queries about voters.
On the broader legal questions raised in the case, the court said that federal law requires the government to respond to requests from states for information about citizenship.
The lower court injunction “prevents the federal government from using the program it believes is best suited to the task,” the court said.
In dissent, liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that the government had not done enough to show that the lower court ruling needed to be blocked.
In her view, “the harm caused by burdening or disenfranchising even a few lawful voters outweighs the nonexistent harm that the Government experiences when it is prevented from taking an action that it likely lacks the authority to take,” she added.
Various groups challenging the plan, led by the League of Women Voters, have argued that it violates several laws, including the Social Security Act and the Privacy Act.
The Supreme Court decision “puts millions of Americans at risk for being unlawfully targeted by the administration’s unreliable voter purge database,” the groups said in a statement.
Conservative who have backed the administration’s efforts to tighten voting laws, welcomed the decision.
The ruling “just makes it easier for states to get federal citizenship data to help them clean up voter rolls,” Jason Snead, executive director of the Honest Elections Project, said in a statement.
The Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements program, known as SAVE, was set up by Congress in 1986 so that government agencies could quickly determine someone’s immigration status when they applied for benefits like Social Security.
The Trump administration expanded SAVE after President Donald Trump issued an executive order in March 2025 that required agencies to take steps to better ensure that only U.S. citizens vote in elections.
The government expanded the database by adding information from the Social Security Administration, which enabled searches using Social Security numbers and allowed officials to do bulk searches.
After states started putting their voter rolls through the newly expanded system, some local officials noticed mistakes; many of the flagged registrants were newly naturalized citizens, according to reporting from ProPublica and The Texas Tribune.
Texas was one of the first states to put its full voter rolls — more than 18 million registrations — through the SAVE database last year. Just three people have been charged with voting illegally as a noncitizen.
A federal judge blocked the Trump administration plan, with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reaching the same conclusion.
In court papers, Solicitor General D. John Sauer said that the district court’s ruling “threatens the integrity of upcoming elections” by preventing the government from responding to state requests to verify the citizenship of potential voters.
Opponents argue the expanded database could force bureaucratic obligations on newly naturalized citizens who are asked to prove their citizenship after being flagged by the system.
Noncitizen voting is extremely rare. All states are required to conduct voter roll list maintenance under federal law, and states already have processes to identify any noncitizens who do accidentally make it onto the voter rolls.
Open article →NPRUnited States
Goldstein: —Tone: —
The Supreme Court revives a controversial data system for citizenship checks
The U.S. Supreme Court has for now revived a federal data system the Department of Homeland Security revamped into a tool to check the citizenship of millions of Americans on state voter rolls. The tool has mistakenly flagged some eligible voters as potential noncitizens.
The news comes as the Trump administration has been pouring resources into searching for noncitizens on voter rolls ahead of the upcoming election.
Many states uploaded their voter lists to the expanded version of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements data system — known as SAVE — sharing that voter information with the federal government. Tens of millions of voter records were run through SAVE before it was blocked by a federal judge in Washington, D.C., in June.
The Supreme Court's decision clears the way for the administration to again use the revamped SAVE in its hunt for noncitizens on voter rolls, as well as in its unprecedented project of compiling lists of adult citizens in each state.
Any impact on the midterm elections is unclear. Federal law bans states from "systematically" removing voters from rolls within 90 days of a federal election.
The Trump administration and Republican state officials have made the case that the statute should not apply to removing noncitizens who were improperly registered. And the federal government argued to the Supreme Court that at a minimum, the updated SAVE should be able to be used for individual removal decisions ahead of an election.
In siding with the Trump administration, the court's majority wrote that the lower court order that halted the expanded SAVE prevents the federal government "from using the modified SAVE program to conduct individualized inquiries, which are permitted under federal law during this [90-day] period. The District Court's order thus inhibits the Federal Government's efforts to assist state and local agencies in the proper administration of the midterm elections."
The Supreme Court's three liberal justices dissented from the ruling, and would have denied the Trump administration's stay application.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored the dissent, writing about the "majority's omission of any consideration of the harms that might occur if the modified SAVE system is allowed to continue operating. The District Court highlighted such harms, noting the risk that States might cancel the voter registrations of at least some recently naturalized citizens or force such persons to provide proof of citizenship before voting."
The coalition of organizations that challenged the SAVE overhaul last year, which includes the League of Women Voters and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, put out a statement on Friday that said litigation in the case is ongoing.
"Today's decision is profoundly disappointing, as it puts millions of Americans at risk of being unlawfully targeted by the administration's unreliable voter purge database weeks before the midterm elections," the statement reads. "However, this case is not over. The D.C. district court ruled that the expanded SAVE program violated multiple laws. We will be doing everything in our power to protect Americans' voting and privacy rights by ensuring that the district court decision stands."
How the Trump administration overhauled SAVE
SAVE is a 40-year-old federal data system that was created to check the immigration status of noncitizens to determine their eligibility for public benefits.
Then, DHS overhauled SAVE last year by linking it for the first time with Social Security Administration records, which include most Americans. The overhaul also allowed bulk queries to SAVE, and DHS encouraged states to upload their entire voter rolls to SAVE to verify those registered are U.S. citizens and not listed as deceased in federal records.
In June, U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan, a Biden appointee, blocked use of the modified version of SAVE, finding that its aggregation and disclosure of sensitive data violated the Social Security Act, the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedures Act.
"The federal government has knowingly trampled on the privacy rights of American citizens in a manner that threatens the sacred right to vote," she wrote.
After an appeals court panel refused to stay the lower court's decision in a 2-1 vote, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer appealed to the Supreme Court earlier this month.
In his appeal, Sauer wrote that since May 2025, the updated version of SAVE has verified more than 65 million voters across 26 states, and has flagged 28,635 as potential noncitizens.
"The district court's order, however, makes it harder to detect ineligible voters, undermining the integrity of federal elections and public confidence in the results of those elections," he wrote.
The League of Women Voters and the Electronic Privacy Information Center — which are represented in the case by Democracy Forward, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and the Fair Elections Center — argued in a brief to the Supreme Court that Congress has not authorized the federal government to create a "master database of U.S. Citizens," nor does it have data that could do that accurately. The brief added that multiple statutes restrict repurposing and sharing Americans' sensitive data.
"Disregarding these laws, the government has recklessly created an error-laden master citizenship database that endangers millions of Americans' privacy and voting rights," the groups wrote.
They wrote that even though 65 million voters had been verified by the revamped SAVE, the government had not yet released the system's error rate, or how many Americans' citizenship was misrepresented "and who consequently have been forced to reverify their citizenship to retain their voter registration or obtain government benefits."
A key part of the legal dispute has rested on whether the modified SAVE violated federal privacy laws.
But the Supreme Court majority on Friday sided with an argument the federal government had made, that a provision from the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act authorizes DHS to disclose citizenship information — including Social Security information — to states.
The three liberal justices who dissented disagreed with the majority's analysis on this point, saying that the provision does not override limits in federal law on how Social Security information can be shared. Jackson noted in her dissent that in the three decades since the 1996 law was enacted, "the government has never invoked [the provision] in that way—even as it has repeatedly refined the SAVE program."
SAVE has mistakenly flagged eligible citizens
Even though Election Day is just over a month away and voting is underway, the Trump administration could try to make use of the expanded version of SAVE right away in its quest to check registered voters' citizenship.
An executive order President Trump signed in March calls for federal agencies to consult SAVE data, along with other federal records, to create state-by-state lists of adult U.S. citizens. The same order directs the U.S. attorney general to prioritize investigating and prosecuting election officials who provide ballots to ineligible voters. Even though the executive order says such state lists are to be completed 60 days before an election and that deadline has already passed, federal officials have indicated the project is still underway — although it is facing a legal challenge.
On Friday afternoon, the federal judge in Maryland who is overseeing that case grilled the federal government over whether it was still planning to release state citizenship lists before the election, but Department of Justice attorney Joshua Schopf said he could not say. The judge told the government it must give the court 30 days' notice if it plans to launch a portal that would publish the citizenship lists.
Eligible voters have been erron
Open article →GDELTWashington D.C.
Goldstein: -3.6Tone: -1.5
Supreme Court lets Trump administration use revamped federal voter eligibility database for now
Advertisement
Read this article for free:
or
Already have an account? Log in here »
To continue reading, please subscribe:
Digital Subscription
One year of digital access for only $205*
- Enjoy unlimited reading on winnipegfreepress.com
- Read the E-Edition, our digital replica newspaper
- Access News Break, our award-winning app
- Play interactive puzzles
*First annual payment billed as $205.00 + GST for one year. This annual subscription will automatically renew at $233.00 + GST every 52 weeks (10% off the regular annual price of $259.35). Offer available to new and qualified returning subscribers only. Cancel any time.
To continue reading, please subscribe:
Add Free Press access to your Brandon Sun subscription for only an additional
$1 for the first 4 weeks*
- Enjoy unlimited reading on winnipegfreepress.com
- Read the E-Edition, our digital replica newspaper
- Access News Break, our award-winning app
- Play interactive puzzles
*Your next Brandon Sun subscription payment will increase by $1.00 and you will be charged $17.95 plus GST for four weeks. After four weeks, your payment will increase to $24.95 plus GST every four weeks.
Read unlimited articles for free today:
or
Already have an account? Log in here »
NEW YORK (AP) — The Supreme Court on Friday lifted restrictions on a controversial federal voter database before November’s elections, granting President Donald Trump a temporary win in his aggressive campaign against noncitizen voting.
The court’s three liberal-leaning justices publicly dissented from the decision.
The emergency order allows states, for now, to use the Department of Homeland Security program, called Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, or SAVE, in their efforts to verify the eligibility of voters on their rolls. But because existing law blocks most states from systematically purging voters from their rolls within 90 days of an election, the immediate impact on the upcoming midterms is likely limited.
States’ use of the SAVE program is voluntary.
The court’s order puts on hold a federal judge’s June ruling that had deemed the Republican administration’s recently revamped version of SAVE illegal. U.S. District Court Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan had blocked the use of the tool, saying it violated Americans’ privacy rights and could result in voters being wrongly removed from the rolls.
A federal appeals court declined to pause Sooknanan’s ruling, prompting the administration’s appeal to the Supreme Court.
The SAVE program was created under an immigration law mandating that DHS help federal, state and local agencies prevent government benefits from going to noncitizens. The Trump administration last year moved to significantly expand its search abilities. Since then, at least 67 million registrations have been scanned through the program, but critics worry it could end up purging valid voters from the rolls.
Some registrants have already been wrongly flagged. In Travis County, Texas, for example, officials said they investigated 97 voters flagged by SAVE as apparent noncitizens and found that at least 10% of them — and likely up to 21% — were U.S. citizens. The county urged the Supreme Court to reject the administration’s appeal, while the state of Texas submitted its own brief defending the database.
Even though the use of the SAVE program has been blocked for months, the administration said in court filings that DHS officials have continued using Social Security Administration data “in certain cases to verify information and help determine whether illegal voting may have occurred.”
DHS in August launched its own investigation to find noncitizen voters on state rolls, according to a federal whistleblower statement that said the effort is rushed, filled with errors and potentially violates state laws. DHS has defended that investigation as being conducted “diligently and professionally.”
The effort to create a national voter list is among numerous steps Trump has taken during his second term to try to overhaul the way elections are run. Most of those steps have been blocked by various courts, in part because the Constitution gives states and Congress the authority to set election rules, but provides no such power to the president. In mid-September, the Supreme Court rejected a bid from Trump to restrict mail ballot procedures before the midterms.
Research shows that noncitizen voting, which is already illegal and punishable as a potential felony that could lead to deportation, is exceptionally rare. But Trump has remained fixated on the idea that massive numbers of noncitizens are voting in U.S. races.
Open article →GDELTTexas
Goldstein: -4.7Tone: 1.3
The U.S. Supreme Court has revived for now a federal data system the Department of Homeland Security revamped into a tool to check the citizenship of millions of Americans on voter rolls. The tool has mistakenly flagged some eligible voters as potential noncitizens.
The news comes as the Trump administration has been pouring resources into searching for noncitizens on voter rolls ahead of the upcoming election. The Supreme Court's decision opens the way for the administration to use its expanded version of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements data system — known as SAVE — in that hunt, as well as in its unprecedented project of compiling lists of adult citizens in each state.
SAVE is a 40-year-old federal data system that was created to check the immigration status of noncitizens to determine their eligibility for public benefits. Then, DHS overhauled SAVE last year by linking it for the first time with Social Security Administration records, which include most Americans. The overhaul also allowed bulk queries to SAVE, and DHS encouraged states to upload their entire voter rolls to SAVE to verify those registered are U.S. citizens and not listed as deceased in federal records.
In June, U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan, a Biden appointee, blocked use of the modified version of SAVE, finding that its aggregation and disclosure of sensitive data violated the Social Security Act, the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedures Act. "The federal government has knowingly trampled on the privacy rights of American citizens in a manner that threatens the sacred right to vote," she wrote.
After an appeals court panel refused to stay the lower court's decision in a 2-1 vote, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer appealed to the Supreme Court earlier this month.
In his appeal, Sauer wrote that since May 2025, the updated version of SAVE has verified more than 65 million voters across 26 states, and has flagged 28,635 as potential noncitizens.
"The district court's order, however, makes it harder to detect ineligible voters, undermining the integrity of federal elections and public confidence in the results of those elections," he wrote.
The League of Women Voters and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which first challenged the legality of the SAVE overhaul a year ago, argued in a brief to the Supreme Court that Congress has not authorized the federal government to create a "master database of U.S. Citizens," nor does it have data that could do that accurately. The brief added that multiple statutes restrict repurposing and sharing Americans' sensitive data.
"Disregarding these laws, the government has recklessly created an error-laden master citizenship database that endangers millions of Americans' privacy and voting rights," the groups wrote.
They wrote that even though 65 million voters had been verified by the revamped SAVE, the government had not yet released the system's error rate, or how many Americans' citizenship was misrepresented "and who consequently have been forced to reverify their citizenship to retain their voter registration or obtain government benefits."
Even though Election Day is just over a month away and voting is underway, the Trump administration could try to make use of the expanded version of SAVE right away in its quest to check registered voters' citizenship.
An executive order President Trump signed in March calls for federal agencies to consult SAVE data, along with other federal records, to create state-by-state lists of adult U.S. citizens. The same order directs the U.S. attorney general to prioritize investigating and prosecuting election officials who provide ballots to ineligible voters. Even though the executive order says such state lists are to be completed 60 days before an election and that deadline has already passed, federal officials have indicated the project is still underway — although it is facing a legal challenge.
One factor with the election so near is that federal law bars states from "systematically" removing voters from rolls within 90 days of a federal election. Though the Trump administration and Republican state officials have argued that rule should not apply to removing noncitizens who were improperly registered. And the federal government argued to the Supreme Court that at a minimum, the updated SAVE should be able to be used for individual removal decisions ahead of an election.
Yet eligible voters have been erroneously flagged by SAVE, which has been unable to confirm the citizenship of certain categories of foreign-born people who become U.S. citizens.
After Texas ran its entire voter list of 18 million voters through SAVE, the system flagged 2,724 voters as potential noncitizens. County election officials then gave those individuals 30 days to prove their citizenship and, following state law, removed anyone who did not respond in time.
As NPR first reported in December, that effort resulted in citizens being removed from the rolls. Anthony Nel, whose story NPR highlighted in that reporting, gave a declaration in this lawsuit.
A recent press release from the Texas secretary of state revealed that of the 2,724 voters that were initially flagged by SAVE as potential noncitizens, some 20% were later found to be citizens who were reinstated. The same release said the office referred 117 cases identified by SAVE, or 4.2% of those flagged, for investigation for possible noncitizen voting.
Copyright 2026 NPR
Open article →GDELTColorado
Goldstein: 2.4Tone: -6.0
The Trump administration urgently approached the United States Supreme Court on Thursday, seeking to lift judicial restrictions that hinder swift deportations of immigrants to nations other than their own. This move comes after a First Circuit order allegedly forced the cancellation of a flight carrying 70 individuals, according to government sources.
The Associated Press reports that the administration requested the justices to immediately suspend lower court orders. These orders require the government to provide immigrants with a meaningful chance to contest their deportation to a country not initially specified in their immigration proceedings.
Attorney General Todd Blanche confirmed the filing of the motion on Thursday. "We have just submitted an emergency stay request to the Supreme Court. As I mentioned, we will seek relief immediately," he posted on his X account.
Blanche noted that the opposition has until Monday to respond to the government's plea.
Judicial Intervention and Its Implications
The Supreme Court's involvement was sought following a late-night order from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on September 23rd. This decision, according to the administration, necessitated the cancellation of a scheduled flight on Thursday, carrying 70 individuals with criminal convictions to three distinct countries.
The government argued that this cancellation also required renewed diplomatic negotiations with each of the receiving nations. While the administration has not publicly identified these three destinations, immigrant attorneys had earlier requested urgent intervention upon learning of a planned flight from Alexandria, Louisiana, to Burundi, Rwanda, and the Central African Republic.
Legal Battle Over Deportation Procedures
Hours following this request, the First Circuit clarified that a previous order allowing flights to proceed during ongoing litigation was no longer effective. Blanche expressed strong criticism of the decision, arguing it deprived authorities of a tool the government deems lawful for executing its immigration policy.
The controversy stems from a judicial ruling on the protections immigrants should receive before being deported to a third country. The ruling does not outright ban such transfers but mandates that affected individuals receive effective notice and a substantial opportunity to argue they might face persecution or torture in the destination country.
On September 18th, the First Circuit largely upheld the decision by federal judge Brian Murphy in Massachusetts, challenging the policy applied by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). In its detailed opinion, the court stipulated that DHS must give affected individuals adequate notice of the third country intended for deportation and a fair chance to contest this destination on grounds of reasonable fear of persecution or torture.
Impacts on Immigrant Populations
While the court confirmed these procedural rights, it rejected another aspect of the lower court's decision, which required the government to first attempt deportation to specific countries before considering third states.
The Trump administration argues that these new judicial requirements could lead to extended delays and necessitate changes to agreements made with foreign governments. "The government has successfully deported thousands of foreigners to third countries in recent months, and thousands more qualify for such deportations," wrote United States Solicitor General D. John Sauer in the Supreme Court filing submitted on Thursday.
The administration claims it resorts to third-country deportations when rapid return to the individuals' home countries is not feasible, assuring that the receiving governments provide guarantees against persecution or torture for the deportees.
According to AP, most deportees sent to countries other than their own have been relocated to Mexico, though thousands have been transferred to over twenty different countries under various agreements negotiated by Washington.
Legal challenges to these procedures persist. Last Friday, a federal judge in Colorado ordered the administration to return Bryan Omar Sánchez, a Honduran deported on July 29th to the Central African Republic, to the United States. Judge Regina M. Rodríguez directed that Sánchez be returned and released upon arrival in the U.S. The Honduran had a pending asylum application and protection under the Convention Against Torture at the time of his deportation to Africa.
This policy has also affected Cuban nationals. In early September, several Cubans deported by the United States to African countries recounted months of detention, untreated illnesses, weight loss, family separation, and uncertainty about their immigration status.
Among them were Cubans sent to Eswatini and the Central African Republic, while others from the island were relocated to countries like Liberia and Equatorial Guinea.
This case is part of a broader legal dispute over third-country deportations. Stay updated with the latest developments in our U.S. Immigration section.
Understanding the Supreme Court's Role in Third-Country Deportations
What prompted the Trump administration to seek Supreme Court intervention?
The administration sought intervention to remove judicial restrictions on deportations to third countries, which they claim hinder rapid deportations and affect diplomatic agreements.
How did the First Circuit's decision impact deportation procedures?
The decision required the government to provide immigrants with notice and opportunity to challenge deportation to third countries, potentially delaying the process.
What are the potential consequences of the new judicial requirements for deportations?
The requirements could lead to significant delays and necessitate changes in existing agreements with foreign governments regarding deportations.
Open article →