A federal judge in Florida has ordered the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to resume giving four Republican-led states access to an immigration database to check the citizenship status of people on their voter rolls, after another judge blocked it from continuing to use the database nationwide.

U.S. District Judge T. Kent Wetherell II in Pensacola in a ruling on Tuesday said he was aware of Washington, D.C.-based U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan's June 22 decision to halt use of the revamped database, which contains Social Security numbers, citizenship status, and other data on people nationwide.

But Wetherell, who was appointed by Republican President Donald Trump, said that by disabling Florida, Ohio, Iowa and Indiana's access to key features in the database in response to Sooknanan's ruling, DHS had violated an earlier settlement the Trump administration entered into with the states to improve and modernize the system.

"The fact that Defendants disabled those features to comply with Judge Sooknanan’s order does not change the fact that they violated the agreement," he said.

Sooknanan, who was appointed by Democratic President Joe Biden, had sided with voting rights and privacy advocates who argued that the overhaul of the system, known as SAVE, made it less accurate and risked disenfranchising eligible voters.

Wetherell said he disagreed with Sooknanan's conclusion that the revamp was unlawful and that it violated privacy laws restricting the federal government's disclosure of Social Security numbers and other information.

Wetherell said that when he approved the Trump administration's settlement of a Biden-era lawsuit the state of Florida had filed in 2024 that challenged the SAVE system's prior implementation, he had "implicitly" found that the modifications the deal called for were consistent with federal law.

Wetherell said he understood the situation put DHS "in a bind because they are subject to two contradictory orders — one from this Court requiring them to include certain features in the SAVE system and one from Judge Sooknanan prohibiting them from doing so."

"One of the orders has to give, and not surprisingly, the Court is not persuaded by Defendants’ (and the amici’s) arguments that its order is the one that should give," he said.

Sooknanan, in a subsequent order on Wednesday, said Wetherell's ruling would have no effect on the case before her as she rejected the Trump administration's request to pause her ruling while it appeals.

She said Wetherell "erred in significant ways" in his decision and issued essentially an advisory opinion as he "had no authority to make merits determinations about the legality of SAVE, either implicitly or explicitly."

DHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In the U.S., federal elections are administered by individual states. Trump and his allies have long asserted that states are not doing enough to prevent voter fraud, even though audits and academic studies have found that it is rare. Trump argues, falsely, that his loss in the 2020 presidential election was due to fraud.

His administration's efforts to boost the federal government's control over elections have largely been stymied by the courts, with judges blocking implementation of Trump's executive orders requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote and restricting the counting of mail ballots.

Last year's SAVE revamp allowed users to search many records at a time and gave them access to individuals' Social Security numbers. Since then, several Republican-led states have compared their voter lists to the database and canceled the registrations of registered voters flagged as noncitizens.

Voting-rights advocates, including the League of Women Voters, argue that SAVE can be outdated, meaning immigrants who have been naturalized and are thus eligible to vote are sometimes labeled as noncitizens.

This legal clash between two federal judges highlights the deep partisan divide over voter integrity and immigration enforcement. Judge Wetherell's order prioritizes the settlement agreement with Republican-led states, while Judge Sooknanan's ruling emphasizes privacy and accuracy concerns raised by voting rights groups.

The SAVE database has become a flashpoint in the broader debate over election security, with Republicans pushing for stronger checks against noncitizen voting and Democrats warning of risks to legitimate voters. As the Trump administration continues its efforts to tighten immigration and election processes, conflicting court orders like these are likely to create ongoing confusion and legal battles.

For now, the four states regain access, but the ultimate resolution may rest with higher courts as appeals unfold. The case underscores how technical immigration tools are increasingly entangled with high-stakes political fights over voting rights.