The U.S. Supreme Court says in a split decision Friday that the Trump administration can follow through with a new way of cross-checking voter eligibility.
All of the liberal justices dissented against the ruling that temporarily allows states to check voters’ citizenship status while the case continues.
'We will be doing everything in our power to protect Americans’ voting and privacy rights by ensuring that the district court decision stands.'
States can use the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements system organized by the Department of Homeland Security and check voter eligibility.
Opponents of the SAVE program claim that lawful voters will be wrongly declared ineligible to vote.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson made the argument in a scathing dissent that was joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.
"The Court focuses only on the harms the Government will purportedly suffer absent a stay, disregarding the harms that the modified SAVE system has caused, and will likely continue to cause, to lawful voters," she wrote.
"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," Jackson added.
The Supreme Court order stayed a federal judge ruling from June that blocked the expanded SAVE system, determining doing so violated Americans' privacy rights.
The DHS General Counsel James Percival reacted to the ruling on social media.
"Yes, you read that right. We had to file an emergency petition in the Supreme Court just so we could use government data to help states stop noncitizens from illegally voting," he wrote.
RELATED: 3 people arrested for alleged election FRAUD ring targeting homeless people in LA, FBI says
The plaintiffs in the case, which included the League of Women Voters, said the effort was not over and that they would continue to challenge the SAVE system.
"This case is not over," the group said in a statement. "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."
Jackson also warned that the states could use the SAVE system to "cancel the voter registrations of at least some recently naturalized citizens."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
This week, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson discussed with Michelle Obama, of all people, the importance of justices appearing impartial — and so far, the reactions to their conversation have been just about what you'd expect.
She told the hosts on the Wednesday episode of "IMO with Michelle Obama & Craig Robinson" that "we all have to believe that there is a judicial system that is going to be fair, that is going to be neutral, that when you bring your dispute to the court, that judge doesn't have any pre-existing stake in the particular issue."
'Can't make this up.'
It's a surprising take, considering Jackson's background.
For one thing, former President Joe Biden explicitly chose Jackson for the Supreme Court on the basis of her race and sex, though she said during her confirmation hearing that she could not define "woman" because she's "not a biologist."
Jackson has also made a habit of penning bias-saturated jeremiads that have in some cases been extreme enough to raise the eyebrows of even other liberals on the bench. For instance, she:
Despite these opinions, Jackson and Obama seem to believe that Jackson has been a relatively neutral jurist.
RELATED: Platner's replacement in Maine is a family man — just not in the way voters might expect
Obama pressed Jackson about whether she has to closely monitor her exposure to news, media, and other content "so that there isn't a bias."
After noting that certain individuals employed at the court screen her invitations for various appearances and events "to make sure that there are no ethical conflicts," Jackson replied that "there are lots of limits on what judges can do, and I try to be very, very mindful and scrupulous with respect to that because, as you say, our obligation is to be unbiased in our approach."
"And, so, you have to then navigate all the sources that could make for an appearance of partiality, which you want to avoid," the Biden nominee continued. "So there are lots of things that I end up not accepting for that reason. News sources, I think, you know, I don't have a lot of time — unfortunately, you know — but I do, you know, the normal, general media sources are made available, and I think it's harder when you're talking about — there's so much social media now."
Jackson's expression of concern about bias and perceptions of bias while in the company of a rank partisan like Michelle Obama struck some critics as insincere or at the very least tone-deaf.
House Republican Conference Chairwoman Lisa McClain (R-Mich.) highlighted the cognitive dissonance, writing, "Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson says SCOTUS must avoid even the appearance of political bias ... while appearing on Michelle Obama's podcast."
Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) wrote, "Ketanji Brown Jackson finds a way to inject political bias into just about everything she does. Whether it's attending the Grammys, joining Michelle Obama's podcast, or refusing to define the word woman, she couldn't care less about remaining impartial."
"DEI hire justice Ketanji Brown Jackson says she's careful about which public engagements she accepts because she has to be impartial ... As she appears on MICHELLE OBAMA's podcast," Libs of TikTok tweeted. "Can't make this up."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Past SCOTUS decisions 'make crystal clear that interstate air and water pollution are matters for federal law unless Congress specifically preserves state law,' said Justice Kavanaugh.
For her all her supposed concerns about her fellow justices ruling based on what they think the law should be instead of what it says, Sotomayor has done exactly that.
Alito wrote that the plaintiff states and federal courts — including SCOTUS — 'bear a substantial share of the blame for the rule’s timing.'
'The Order itself does not harm the States, so the District Court lacked jurisdiction to bar the Government from trying to implement it.'
If there’s one thing Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson loves to do more than anything during Supreme Court oral arguments, it’s talk — and talk, and talk, and talk some more. On Thursday, The New York Times reported on a new study that found Jackson is “by far the most talkative justice” on the court over […]
The real story this data tells is Jackson's radicalism.
www.theblaze.com
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com
What Amy Coney Barrett Told Congress Left Them Silent