Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-542_2c83.pdf
Page Number: 14.0

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

3 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

not fall within the mootness exception for cases that present 
questions that are “capable of repetition” but would other-
wise  evade  review.  See,  e.g.,  Davis  v.  Federal  Election 
Comm’n, 554 U. S. 724, 735–736 (2008).  They argue that
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision “arose from an
extraordinary  and  unprecedented  confluence  of  circum-
stances”—specifically,  the  COVID–19  pandemic,  an  in-
crease  in  mail-in  voting,  and  Postal  Service  delays—and 
that such a perfect storm is not likely to recur.  Brief in Op-
position for Boockvar in No. 20–542, pp. 1, 9; see also Brief 
in  Opposition  for  Pennsylvania  Democratic  Party  in  Nos. 
20–542 and 20–574, p. 12.

That argument fails for three reasons.  First, it does not 
acknowledge  the  breadth  of  the  Pennsylvania  Supreme
Court’s decision.  That decision claims that a state consti-
tutional provision guaranteeing “free and equal” elections 
gives  the  Pennsylvania  courts  the  authority  to  override 
even  very  specific  and  unambiguous  rules  adopted  by  the 
legislature for the conduct of federal elections.  See App. to
Pet. for Cert. 47a (relying on the court’s “broad authority to
craft meaningful remedies when required” (internal quota-
tion marks omitted)).  That issue is surely capable of repe-
tition in future elections.  Indeed, it would be surprising if
parties who are unhappy with the legislature’s rules do not 
invoke this decision and ask the state courts to substitute 
rules that they find more advantageous.

Second, the suggestion that we are unlikely to see a re-
currence of the exact circumstances we saw this fall misun-
derstands  the  applicable  legal  standard.    In  order  for  a 
question  to  be  capable  of  repetition,  it  is  not necessary  to 
predict that history will repeat itself at a very high level of 
specificity.  See  Federal  Election  Comm’n  v.  Wisconsin 
Right to Life, Inc., 551 U. S. 449, 463 (2007).

Third, it is highly speculative to forecast that the Penn-
sylvania Supreme Court will not find that conditions at the 
time  of  a  future  federal  election  are  materially  similar  to