Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21a375_d18f.pdf
Page Number: 4

4 

MERRILL v. MILLIGAN 

KAVANAUGH, J., concurring 

would likely suffer irreparable harm absent the stay.  Hol-
lingsworth v. Perry, 558 U. S. 183, 190 (2010) (per curiam).  
In deciding whether to grant a stay pending appeal or cer-
tiorari, the Court also considers the equities (including the 
likely harm to both parties) and the public interest.  Ibid. 
  As  the  Court  has  often  indicated,  however,  that  tradi-
tional test for a stay does not apply (at least not in the same 
way) in election cases when a lower court has issued an in-
junction  of  a  state’s  election  law  in  the  period  close  to  an 
election.  See Purcell, 549 U. S. 1.  This Court has repeat-
edly stated that federal courts ordinarily should not enjoin 
a state’s election laws in the period close to an election, and 
this Court in turn has often stayed lower federal court in-
junctions  that  contravened  that  principle.    See  ibid.;  see 
also Merrill v. People First of Ala., 592 U. S. ___ (2020); An-
dino  v.  Middleton,  592  U. S.  ___  (2020);  Merrill  v.  People 
First of Ala., 591 U. S. ___ (2020); Clarno v. People Not Pol-
iticians, 591 U. S. ___ (2020); Little v. Reclaim Idaho, 591 
U. S. ___ (2020); Republican National Committee v. Demo-
cratic  National  Committee,  589  U. S.  ___  (2020)  (per  cu-
riam);  Democratic  National  Committee  v.  Wisconsin  State 
Legislature, 592 U. S. ___ (2020) (declining to vacate stay). 
  That principle—known as the Purcell principle—reflects 
a bedrock tenet of election law: When an election is close at 
hand, the rules of the road must be clear and settled.  Late 
judicial tinkering with election laws can lead to disruption 
and  to  unanticipated  and  unfair  consequences  for  candi-
dates, political parties, and voters, among others.  It is one 
thing for a State on its own to toy with its election laws close 
to  a  State’s  elections.    But  it  is  quite  another  thing  for  a 
federal court to swoop in and re-do a State’s election laws 
in the period close to an election.1 
—————— 

1 How close to an election is too close may depend in part on the nature 
of  the  election  law  at  issue,  and  how  easily  the  State  could  make  the 
change without undue collateral effects.  Changes that require complex 
or disruptive implementation must be ordered earlier than changes that