The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Thursday to allow the Trump administration to proceed with an expanded voter citizenship verification database ahead of the November midterm elections. The decision lifts lower court injunctions that had blocked the program, permitting federal authorities to cross-reference state voter rolls against Department of Homeland Security immigration and identification records to flag potential noncitizens.

The majority opinion, split along the court's conservative-liberal lines, held that the administration had sufficient legal authority under existing federal statutes to operate the expanded database. The three liberal justices dissented, arguing the rollout timeline posed risks of erroneous voter removals too close to an election for states to adequately review flagged registrations.

The DHS program, an expansion of an existing voter verification tool, draws on a broader set of federal databases than its predecessor, including records from Customs and Border Protection and immigration courts. Administration officials have said the system is designed to identify noncitizens who may have registered to vote, a practice that is illegal under federal law. Critics, including voting rights organizations that brought the underlying lawsuits, contend the databases contain errors that could lead to the wrongful purging of eligible citizens.

States must now decide how to act on any flagged records the federal government provides. Election officials in several states have indicated they will conduct individual reviews before removing any voter from the rolls, a process that will be compressed given the proximity to Election Day. Federal law generally prohibits systematic voter roll purges within 90 days of a federal election, though the administration has argued that flagging and notification do not constitute a purge.

The ruling is one of the most significant election-related decisions by the court in the current cycle and is expected to affect voter registration processes in multiple states. Legal challenges to the underlying program remain pending in lower courts, meaning further litigation is likely after the midterms regardless of the database's use this cycle.