Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-542_2c83.pdf
Page Number: 3

Cite as:  592 U. S. ____ (2021) 

3 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

Not only did parties on both sides agree that the issue war-
ranted certiorari, but there also was no question that peti-
tioners faced irreparable harm.  See Maryland v. King, 567 
U. S.  1301,  1303  (2012)  (ROBERTS,  C.  J.,  in  chambers)
(“ ‘[A]ny time a State is enjoined by a court from effectuating 
statutes enacted by representatives of its people, it suffers 
a  form  of  irreparable  injury’ ”).    Petitioners  further  estab-
lished a fair prospect of certiorari and reversal.  For more 
than a century, this Court has recognized that the Consti-
tution “operat[es] as a limitation upon the State in respect
of any attempt to circumscribe the legislative power” to reg-
ulate federal elections.  McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 
25 (1892).  Because the Federal Constitution, not state con-
stitutions, gives state legislatures authority to regulate fed-
eral elections, petitioners presented a strong argument that 
the  Pennsylvania  Supreme  Court’s  decision  violated  the 
Constitution by overriding “the clearly expressed intent of
the  legislature.”    Bush  v.  Gore,  531  U. S.  98,  120  (2000) 
(Rehnquist, C. J., concurring).  Despite petitioners’ strong 
showing  that  they  were  entitled  to  relief,  we  divided  4–4
and thus failed to act.  Scarnati v. Boockvar, ante, p. ___.

Four  days  later,  petitioners  filed  the  first  of  these  peti-
tions  and  moved  to  expedite  consideration  so  the  Court 
could  decide  the  merits  before  election  day.    But  by  that 
time, election day was just over a week away.  So we denied 
the motion to expedite even though the question was of “na-
tional importance” and there was a “strong likelihood that 
the State Supreme Court decision violates the Federal Con-
stitution.”  Republican Party of Pa. v. Boockvar, ante, at 3 
(statement of ALITO, J.). 

II 

Now  that  the  petitions  are  before  us  under  the  normal 
briefing schedule, I see no reason to avoid them.  Indeed, 
the day after we denied petitioner’s motion to expedite in 
No. 20–542, the case became even more worthy of review.