Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20a55_dc8e.pdf
Page Number: 2.0

2 

ANDINO v. MIDDLETON 

KAVANAUGH, J., concurring 

and the health of the people to the politically accountable 
officials  of  the  States.”    South  Bay  United  Pentecostal 
Church  v.  Newsom,  590  U. S.  ___,  ___  (2020)  (ROBERTS, 
C. J., concurring in denial of application for injunctive re-
lief) (slip op., at 2) (internal quotation marks and alteration 
omitted).  “When those officials ‘undertake[ ] to act in areas 
fraught with medical and scientific uncertainties,’ their lat-
itude ‘must be especially broad.’ ”  Ibid. (quoting Marshall 
v.  United  States,  414  U. S.  417,  427  (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 ___ (slip op., at 2) (citing Garcia v. San Antonio 
Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U. S. 528, 545 (1985)).  
The District Court’s injunction contravened that principle. 
  Second,  for  many  years,  this  Court  has  repeatedly  em-
phasized  that  federal  courts  ordinarily  should  not  alter 
state election rules in the period close to an election.  See 
Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U. S. 1 (2006) (per curiam).  By en-
joining  South  Carolina’s  witness  requirement  shortly  be-
fore  the  election,  the  District  Court  defied  that  principle 
and  this  Court’s  precedents.    See  ___  F. 3d  ___,  ___–___ 
(CA4  2020)  (Wilkinson and  Agee,  JJ.,  dissenting  from de-
nial of stay). 
  For  those  two  alternative  and  independent  reasons,  I 
agree  with  this  Court’s  order  staying  in  part  the  District 
Court’s injunction.