Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20a67_3e04.pdf
Page Number: 3.0

Cite as:  592 U. S. ____ (2020) 

3 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

et al. as Amici Curiae 1–3.  The Alabama secretary of state, 
however,  has  prohibited  counties  from  offering  curbside 
voting, even for voters with disabilities for whom COVID–
19 is disproportionately likely to be fatal.  If those vulnera-
ble voters wish to vote in person, they must wait inside, for 
as long as it takes, in a crowd of fellow voters whom Ala-
bama does not require to wear face coverings.  See ___ F. 
Supp. 3d, at ___, 2020 WL 5814455, *8. 
  On May 1, 2020, several at-risk Alabama voters and as-
sociated organizations sued to enjoin that ban, along with 
other restrictive voting laws not at issue here.  The District 
Court expedited discovery and held a trial from September 
8 to 18.  Id., at *2.  Based on the trial evidence, the District 
Court concluded, in relevant part, that the secretary’s ban 
on  curbside  voting  violated the  ADA  and that  a  policy  al-
lowing,  but  not requiring,  counties to  implement curbside 
voting was a reasonable accommodation.  The Eleventh Cir-
cuit upheld that portion of the District Court’s injunction.  
See People First of Ala. v. Secretary of State for Ala., 2020 
WL  6074333,  *1  (CA11,  Oct.  13,  2020).    The  secretary, 
among others, now seeks a stay of that decision. 
  I would deny the stay.  The secretary has not shown any 
legal  error  below.    We  should  not  substitute  the  District 
Court’s  reasonable,  record-based  findings  of  fact  with  our 
own intuitions about the risks of traditional in-person vot-
ing during this pandemic or the ability of willing local offi-
cials to implement adequate curbside voting procedures. 
  The District Court for good reason found that the secre-
tary’s ban deprives disabled voters of the equally effective 
“opportunity to participate in” the “benefit” of in-person vot-
ing.  28 CFR §35.130(b)(1)(ii) (2019).  The secretary does not 
meaningfully  dispute  that  the  plaintiffs  have  disabilities, 
that  COVID–19  is  disproportionately  likely  to  be  fatal  to 
these plaintiffs,  and  that  traditional  in-person  voting  will 
meaningfully  increase  their  risk  of  exposure.    He  argues 
only  that  the  relevant  “benefit”  under  the  ADA  is  voting