Trump v. California · ¶70
Granting this stay also risks the kinds of on-the-ground chaos this Court has previously decried in the elections context but does not even address today. See Purcell, 549 U. S., at 4–5; see also Democratic National Committee v. Wiscon sin State Legislature, 592 U. S. ＿＿＿, ＿＿＿＿ (2020) (KAVANAUGH, J., concurring in denial of application to vacate stay) (slip op., at 2) (acknowledging that “running a statewide election is a complicated endeavor” involving “a massive coordinated effort” of “thousands of state and local officials”). The Court’s concerns about judicial interventions that stress election officials and confuse the voting public seem to have inexplicably vanished, for today’s ruling requires the Plaintiff States to bring their legal challenges closer in time to the upcoming elections despite any resulting confusion. Forget tamping down the chaos by ensuring that claims are…Read in context ›
slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.