A strong case for the unconstitutionality of the SAVE Act (H.R. 22) under the First Amendment centers on the bill's infringement on the freedom of speech, the right to associate, and the "expressive conduct" of voter registration.

The primary legal arguments are as follows:

1. Violation of the Right to Associate and Political Expression

The First Amendment protects the right of individuals and organizations to associate for political purposes.

• Destruction of Registration Drives: The SAVE Act requires in-person presentation of original citizenship documents to an election official. This mandate functionally ends the ability of nonpartisan and civic organizations to conduct traditional voter registration drives.
• Restriction on Civic Engagement: Because these drives are a primary method for underrepresented groups to register, crippling them is seen as an unconstitutional abridgment of the right of civic groups to engage with their communities and help fellow citizens participate in democracy. Courts have frequently recognized these drives as protected "core political speech".

2. Registration as "Expressive Conduct"

Legal scholars argue that the act of registering to vote is itself a form of speech protected by the First Amendment.

• The "Voice" of the Citizen: The Supreme Court has acknowledged that voting is the way a citizen has a "voice" in elections. If registration is the mandatory precursor to that voice, then placing "onerous" and "burdensome" requirements on registration can be viewed as an unconstitutional "prior restraint" or a "chill" on that expressive act.
• Abridgment of Participation: By creating documentation barriers that millions of eligible citizens cannot satisfy, the Act effectively silences those voices before they can even reach the ballot box.

3. "Chilling Effect" on Protected Activity

The First Amendment prohibits laws that "chill" (discourage or intimidate) people from exercising their constitutional rights.

• Intimidation of Vulnerable Communities: The SAVE Act has been criticized for creating a "chilling effect" on naturalized citizens and communities of color, who are statistically three times more likely to lack the required documents than white citizens.
• Criminalization of Assistance: The bill subjects election workers to harsh criminal penalties—up to five years in prison—for administrative errors in processing registration without the correct documents. This threat of imprisonment is argued to "chill" the speech and conduct of those who facilitate the democratic process.

4. Discriminatory Application and Content Neutrality

A First Amendment challenge might also argue that the Act fails the test of "content neutrality" if it is found to target specific types of political engagement.

• Impact on Political Speech: Since the Act disproportionately burdens certain demographics (young voters, low-income voters, and married women), it arguably restricts the political speech of these specific groups more than others.
• Lack of Proportionality: Under First Amendment standards, the government must show that its restrictions are proportional to a compelling interest. Critics argue that because noncitizen voting is "vanishingly rare," the massive burden placed on tens of millions of citizens—effectively a "policy equivalent of sifting the entire ocean to find a single seashell"—is unconstitutionally disproportionate.