Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20a66_new_m6io.pdf
Page Number: 9.0

4 

DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE v. WISCONSIN 

STATE LEGISLATURE 
KAVANAUGH, J., concurring 

rule in the period close to an election.  That argument defies 
common sense and would turn Purcell on its head.  Correct-
ing an erroneous lower court injunction of a state election 
rule cannot itself constitute a Purcell problem.  Otherwise, 
appellate  courts could never correct  a  late-breaking  lower 
court injunction of a state election rule.  That obviously is 
not  the  law.    To  be  sure,  it  would  be  preferable  if  federal 
district  courts  did  not  contravene the  Purcell  principle  by 
rewriting state election laws close to an election.  But when 
they  do,  appellate  courts  must  step  in.    See,  e.g.,  Andino, 
ante, p. ___; RNC, 589 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 3). 
  Second,  even  apart  from  the  late  timing,  the  District 
Court misapprehended the limited role of the federal courts 
in  COVID–19  cases.    This  Court  has  consistently  stated 
that  the  Constitution  principally  entrusts  politically  ac-
countable  state  legislatures,  not  unelected  federal  judges, 
with the responsibility to address the health and safety of 
the people during the COVID–19 pandemic.   
  The COVID–19 pandemic has caused the deaths of more 
than  200,000  Americans,  and  it remains  a  serious  threat, 
including in Wisconsin.  The virus poses a particular risk to 
the  elderly  and  to  those  with  certain  pre-existing  condi-
tions.  But federal judges do not possess special expertise or 
competence about how best to balance the costs and bene-
fits of potential policy responses to the pandemic, including 
with respect to elections.  For that reason, this Court’s cases 
during the pandemic have adhered to a basic jurispruden-
tial principle: When state and local officials “ ‘undertake[ ] 
to  act  in  areas  fraught  with  medical  and  scientific  uncer-
tainties,’ their latitude ‘must be especially broad.’ ”  Andino, 
ante, at 2 (KAVANAUGH, J., concurring in grant of applica-
tion for stay).  It follows “that a State legislature’s decision 
either to keep  or to make  changes  to  election rules to  ad-
dress 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