Andino v. Middleton
| Decision Date | 05 October 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 20A55,20A55 |
| Citation | 208 L.Ed.2d 7,141 S.Ct. 9 (Mem) |
| Parties | Marci ANDINO, et al. v. Kylon MIDDLETON, et al. |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
The application for stay presented to THE CHIEF JUSTICE and by him referred to the Court is granted in part, and the district court's September 18, 2020 order granting a preliminary injunction is stayed pending disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court.
The order is stayed except to the extent that any ballots cast before this stay issues and received within two days of this order may not be rejected for failing to comply with the witness requirement.
Justice KAVANAUGH, concurring in grant of application for stay.
The District Court enjoined South Carolina's witness requirement for absentee ballots because the court disagreed with the State's decision to retain that requirement during the COVID–19 pandemic. For two alternative and independent reasons, I agree with this Court's order staying in part the District Court's injunction.
First, the Constitution "principally entrusts the safety and the health of the people to the politically accountable officials of the States." South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom , 590 U. S. ––––, ––––, 140 S.Ct. 1613, 1613-1614, 207 L.Ed.2d 154 (2020) () (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). "When those officials ‘undertake[ ] to act in areas fraught with medical and scientific uncertainties,’ their latitude ‘must be especially broad.’ " Ibid. (quoting Marshall v. United States , 414 U.S. 417, 427, 94 S.Ct. 700, 38 L.Ed.2d 618 (1974) ; alteration in original). It follows that a State legislature's decision either to keep or to make changes to election rules to address COVID–19 ordinarily "should not be subject to second-guessing by an ‘unelected federal judiciary,’ which lacks the background, competence, and expertise to assess public health and is not accountable to the people." South Bay , 590 U. S., at ––––, 140 S.Ct., at 1613-1614 (citing Garcia...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moore v. Circosta, 1:20CV911
...week illustrates, a heavy thumb on the scale weighs against changes to voting regulations. Andino v. Middleton, ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S.Ct. 9, 208 L.Ed.2d 7, (Oct. 5, 2020) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring) ("By enjoining South Carolina's witness requirement shortly before the election, the District......
-
Gonidakis v. LaRose
...Democratic Nat'l Comm. , 141 S. Ct. at 28 (staying similar injunction right before general election); Andino v. Middleton , ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S. Ct. 9, 10, 208 L.Ed.2d 7 (2020) (staying district-court injunction against South Carolina's witness requirement for absentee voting due to proxim......
-
Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Boockvar
...improvements contradict the reasoned judgment of democratically elected officials. See Andino v. Middleton , ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S.Ct. 9, 9–10, 208 L.Ed.2d 7, (Oct. 5, 2020) (Kavanaugh, J. concurring) (state legislatures should not be subject to "second-guessing by an unelected federal judic......
-
Democratic Nat'l Comm. v. Wis. State Legislature
...Ala. , ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S.Ct. 25, ––– L.Ed.2d –––– (2020) ante , p. –––– ( Merrill II ); Andino v. Middleton , ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S.Ct. 190, ––– L.Ed.2d –––– (2020) ante , p. ––––, 2020 WL 5887393 ; Merrill v. People First of Ala. , 591 U. S. ––––, ––– S.Ct. ––––, ––– L.Ed.2d ––––, 2020 W......
-
Community, Society, and Individualism in Constitutional Law
...Merrill v. People First of Ala., 141 S. Ct. 25 (2020) (staying district court’s order to allow curbside voting); Andino v. Middleton, 141 S. Ct. 9 (2020) (staying district court’s injunction against witness requirement for absentee ballots); Republican Nat’l Comm. v. Democratic Nat’l Comm.,......
-
Reviving the Prophylactic VRA: Section 3, Purcell, and the New Vote Denial.
...(mem.); Republican Nat'l Comm. v. Democratic Nat'l Comm., 140 S. Ct. 1205, 1207 (2020) (per curiam). (73.) E.g., Andino v. Middleton, 141 S. Ct. 9,10 (2020) (mem.) (Kavanaugh, ]., (74.) E.g., Merrill v. People First of Ala., 141 S. Ct. 25, 25 (2020) (mem.). (75.) Nicholas Stephanopoulos, Fr......
-
The 'weaponized' First Amendment at the Marble Palace and the Firing Line: Reaction and Progressive Advocacy Before the Roberts Court and Lower Federal Courts
...cases. 38. The methodology of our survey is outlined in the appendix. See infra Appendix. 39. See supra note 26.40. Andino v. Middleton, 141 S. Ct. 9, 9 (2020) (mem.) (granting stay of relief after refusal to dismiss claim for COVID-19 accommodation for voting in Middleton v. Andino, 474 F.......
-
Reasoned Explanation and Political Accountability in the Roberts Court.
...v. Democratic Nat'l Comm., 140 S. Ct. 1205, 1208 (2020) (staying an injunction requiring counting of certain votes); Andino v. Middleton, 141 S. Ct. 9 (2020) (mem.) (same); Democratic Nat'l Comm. v. Wis. State Legislature, 141 S. Ct. 28 (2020) (mem.) (refusing to vacate a lower court's stay......