Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21a375_d18f.pdf
Page Number: 2.0

2 

MERRILL v. MILLIGAN 

KAVANAUGH, J., concurring 

respond  to  the  principal  dissent.    Post,  p.  ___  (opinion  of 
KAGAN, J.). 
  To begin with, the principal dissent is wrong to claim that 
the  Court’s  stay  order  makes  any  new  law  regarding  the 
Voting Rights Act.  The stay order does not make or signal 
any  change  to  voting  rights  law.    The  stay  order  is  not  a 
ruling on the merits, but instead simply stays the District 
Court’s injunction pending a ruling on the merits.  The stay 
order follows this Court’s election-law precedents, which es-
tablish (i) that federal district courts ordinarily should not 
enjoin state election laws in the period close to an election, 
and (ii) that federal appellate courts should stay injunctions 
when, as here, lower federal courts contravene that princi-
ple.   See, e.g.,  Purcell  v. Gonzalez,  549 U. S.  1 (2006)  (per 
curiam). 
  The  principal  dissent’s  catchy  but  worn-out  rhetoric 
about the “shadow docket” is similarly off target.  The stay 
will allow this Court to decide the merits in an orderly fash-
ion—after full briefing, oral argument, and our usual exten-
sive internal deliberations—and ensure that we do not have 
to decide the merits on the emergency docket.  To reiterate: 
The Court’s stay order is not a decision on the merits. 
  As  background:  This  stay  application  arises  from  a  dis-
pute  over  Alabama’s  congressional  election  districts.    The 
State recently adopted a districting plan that, according to 
the  State,  employs  the  same  basic  districting  framework 
that the State has maintained for several decades.  But two 
weeks ago, a three-judge District Court concluded that Al-
abama’s  congressional  districting  plan  likely  violates  fed-
eral voting rights law.  The District Court ordered that Al-
abama’s  congressional  districts  be  completely  redrawn 
within  a  few  short  weeks.    The  District  Court  declined  to 
stay the injunction for the 2022 elections even though the 
primary  elections  begin  (via  absentee  voting)  just  seven 
weeks from now, on March 30. 
  The  State  has  appealed,  contending  that  the  District