Sparkle Strikes Back: DC Judge Defends SAVE Ruling, Rejects Florida Court's Criticism

Yesterday, I brought you the story of the dueling district court decisions. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) found itself in a bit of a pickle after it had a federal judge in D.C. ordering it to dismantle the Trump administration's implementation of the expanded Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system and a federal judge in Florida subsequently ordering it to restore the very features D.C. had ordered removed. 

READ MORE: Dueling Decisions: DHS Stuck Between Opposing District Court Orders

Here we are, less than 24 hours later, and the D.C. judge — Sparkle Sooknanan — has responded not just by denying DHS' motion to stay her decision pending its appeal but by taking DHS to task and then spending a substantial portion of her opinion explaining why she believes the Florida judge — T. Kent Wetherell II — is the one who got it wrong. 

To briefly recap: 

• June 22, 2026 — Sooknanan finds the expanded SAVE system violates the Privacy Act, the Social Security Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and therefore strikes down the changes.
• June 26, 2026 — Administration appeals Sooknanan's ruling to the D.C. Circuit and seeks a stay of her ruling pending appeal. 
• July 7, 2026 — Wetherell enforces the Florida consent decree requiring those features to be restored.
• July 8, 2026 — Sooknanan denies DHS' request for stay and directly takes on Wetherell's opinion.

In denying the request for stay, Sooknanan found that DHS was unlikely to succeed on appeal. She also accused DHS of trying to raise new arguments after losing on the merits and emphasized that stay motions aren't an opportunity for a "do-over." Additionally, she chided DHS for mischaracterizing her Privacy Act ruling, and she accused DHS of creating this predicament itself by entering the Florida consent decree while fully aware this D.C. challenge was pending.

Then things really got interesting as Sooknanan turned her attention to Wetherell, saying that he was mistaken when he suggested that, by approving the Florida settlement, he had effectively determined the SAVE changes were legal. According to Sooknanan, approving a settlement simply means the parties have resolved their dispute — it doesn't mean the judge has ruled that every provision of the agreement complies with federal law.

She also took issue with Wetherell's reading of the Social Security Act, arguing he relied on a statute that explains what information people must provide when applying for a Social Security number — not what the numbers themselves may be used for. In short, Sooknanan believes Wetherell got both the law and the process wrong. 

ALSO SEE: Twin Federal Court Rulings Kneecap Trump's Election Integrity Agenda

To sum up: Judge Sooknanan has denied the DHS request for stay pending appeal, but Judge Wetherell's enforcement order remains in place. So, DHS remains caught between conflicting district court directives. The next significant action will almost certainly be at the D.C. Circuit, where DHS is seeking relief from Sooknanan's June 22 decision.

At this point, we have two federal district judges openly disagreeing — not only about whether the SAVE modifications comply with federal law, but also about the legal significance of the Florida consent decree itself. It will be up to the appellate courts to sort this one out. We'll be watching!

Editor's Note: Do you enjoy RedState's conservative reporting that takes on the radical Left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.

Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.