RUTHELLE FRANK, ET AL.
v.
SCOTT WALKER, GOVERNOR OF WISCONSIN, ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court vacated a Seventh Circuit stay of a District Court's permanent injunction in a case challenging Wisconsin's voter identification requirements, allowing the injunction to remain in effect pending resolution of a petition for certiorari. Justice Alito, joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas, dissented, arguing that the Court had not demonstrated clear and demonstrable error by the Court of Appeals in entering the stay, particularly given the proximity to the upcoming election and the fact that absentee ballots had already been distributed without notation of the photo identification requirement.
[1] An application to vacate a stay entered by a court of appeals may be granted only if the court demonstrably erred in its application of accepted standards.
[2] A stay entered by a court of appeals may be vacated pending the timely filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
The application to vacate the September 12, 2014 order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court is granted and the Seventh Circuit's stay of the District Court's permanent injunction is vacated pending the timely filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari respecting case Nos. 14-2058 & 14-2059. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this order shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the order shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court.
There is a colorable basis for the Court's decision due to the proximity of the upcoming general election. It is particularly troubling that absentee ballots have been sent out without any notation that proof of photo identification must be submitted. But this Court "may not vacate a stay entered by a court of appeals unless that court clearly and 'demonstrably' erred in its application of 'accepted standards.' " Planned Parenthood of Greater Tex. Surgical Health Servs. v. Abbott, 571 U.S. ----, 134 S.Ct. 506, 506, 187 L.Ed.2d 465 (2013)(SCALIA, J., concurring in denial of application to vacate stay) (quoting Western Airlines, Inc. v. Teamsters, 480 U.S. 1301, 1305, 107 S.Ct. 1515, 94 L.Ed.2d 744, (1987)(O'Connor, J., in chambers); some *8internal quotation marks omitted). Under that test, the application in this case should be denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Veasey v. Perry, 135 S. Ct. 9 (U.S. 2014)…ordered by the District Court. The District Court enjoined Wisconsin from implementing the law, the Seventh Circuit stayed the District Court's injunction, and in turn, this Court vacated the Seventh Circuit's stay. See Frank v. Walker,---U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 7, 7, --- L.Ed.2d ----, 2014 WL 5039671 (2014).…
-
Republican Nat'l Comm. v. Democratic Nat'l Comm., 140 S. Ct. 1205 (U.S. 2020)…urt has repeatedly emphasized that lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election. See Purcell v. Gonzalez , 549 U.S. 1, 127 S.Ct. 5, 166 L.Ed.2d 1 (2006) (per curiam ); Frank v. Walker , 574 U.S. 929, 135 S.Ct. 7, 190 L.Ed.2d 245 (2014) ; Veasey v. Perry , 574 U. S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 9, 190 L.Ed.2d 283 (2014). The unusual nature of the District Court's order allowing ballots to be mailed and postmarked after election day is perhaps best demonstrated by the fa…
-
Raysor v. Desantis, 140 S. Ct. 2600 (U.S. 2020)
Authorities Cited
- Planned Parenthood of Greater Tex. Surgical Health Servs. v. Abbott, 134 S. Ct. 506 (U.S. 2013)
- In re Chesley., 134 S. Ct. 677 (U.S. 2013)
- Turner v. Illinois., 134 S. Ct. 676 (U.S. 2013)
- Carneglia v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 676 (U.S. 2013)
- Corzine v. Dep't OF the Army, 134 S. Ct. 676 (U.S. 2013)
- Andersen v. Young and Rubicam Advertising., 134 S. Ct. 677 (U.S. 2013)