Department of Homeland Security v. League of Women Voters · ¶53

The Government has not shown that it is entitled to the “‘extraordinary’” remedy of a stay pending appeal. Doe, 605 U. S., at 963 (JACKSON, J., dissenting) (quoting Graves v. Barnes, 405 U. S. 1201, 1203 (1972) (Powell, J., in chambers)). But if there is a bright side to today’s opinion deciding otherwise, it is that the per curiam will likely have minimal short-term impact, as States will at most conduct individualized voter-roll maintenance using the modified SAVE system ahead of the November elections. See ante, at 6. In my view, however, the harm caused by burdening or disenfranchising even a few lawful voters outweighs the nonexistent harm that the Government experiences when it is prevented from taking an action that it likely lacks the authority to take. This imbalance, along with the Government’s improbable merits arguments, should have compelled the Court to deny the stay.

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.