[EL] WI decision-voter id stayed

[Rick Hasen]

First my own correction: the dissent was Alito with Scalia and Thomas 
joining. I had said it was a Scalia dissent.
On Ned's point, I don't believe the mandate's issued and there is still 
time for an en banc rehearing petition so I don't believe the 7th 
Cir.opinion goes into immediate effect.

On 10/10/14, 4:19 AM, Foley, Edward wrote:
> CORRECTION: my question to the list (reprinted below) inadvertently 
> labeled the Seventh Circuit's injunction as preliminary; it's 
> permanent.  But the essence of the question still stands: if SCOTUS so 
> far has only vacated the Seventh Circuit's stay of that injunction, 
> but the Seventh Circuit has also reversed the merits of that 
> injunction, is or is not the injunction still in force?
>
> Edward B. Foley
> Ebersold Chair in Constitutional Law
> Ohio State University Moritz College of Law
> (614) 292-4288
>
>
> On Oct 9, 2014, at 9:58 PM, Foley, Edward <foley.33 at osu.edu 
> <mailto:foley.33 at osu.edu>> wrote:
>
>> Could Civil Procedure experts help me understand the status of the 
>> district court's preliminary injunction in light of tonight's Supreme 
>> Court ruling?  As I understand it, SCOTUS has acted only so far on 
>> the plaintiffs' application to vacate the Seventh Circuit's stay of 
>> the district court's preliminary injunction.  The order appears to 
>> apply only to 14A352, and not the plaintiffs' subsequent application 
>> to stay the Seventh Circuit's reversal of the PI (14A376).  If this 
>> is correct, then is not the Seventh Circuit's reversal of the PI 
>> still operative, and if so, does that not mean that the PI is NOT 
>> operative (assuming the Seventh Circuit's mandate has issued)?
>>
>> Edward B. Foley
>> Ebersold Chair in Constitutional Law
>> Ohio State University Moritz College of Law
>> (614) 292-4288
>>
>>
>> On Oct 9, 2014, at 9:49 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu 
>> <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>     Breaking: Supreme Court Stops Immediate Implementation of WI
>>>     Voter ID Law <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66601>
>>>
>>> Posted onOctober 9, 2014 6:47 pm 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66601>byRick Hasen 
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>
>>> Here 
>>> <http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/14A352-Wisconsin-voting-order-10-9-14.pdf>is 
>>> the opinion, and judged by the dissent of Justice Scalia, joined by 
>>> Alito and Thomas, the basis was the Purcell objection, the proximity 
>>> to the upcoming election and the risk of electoral chaos.
>>>
>>> Not only didthe apparent Kagan/Breyer strategy I explained last 
>>> night <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66570>to keep the Chief and 
>>> Kennedy likely work, here’s something odd: I probably agree with the 
>>> votes on all three of the decisions of the Court in the election 
>>> cases: OH, NC, and WI.  Three in a row for me and the Court—unheard of.
>>>
>>> [this post is in progress}
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Rick Hasen
>>> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
>>> UC Irvine School of Law
>>> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
>>> Irvine, CA 92697-8000
>>> 949.824.3072 - office
>>> 949.824.0495 - fax
>>> rhasen at law.uci.edu
>>> http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
>>> http://electionlawblog.org
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Law-election mailing list
>>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu 
>>> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
>>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

-- 
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
rhasen at law.uci.edu
http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
http://electionlawblog.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141010/5faccccf/attachment.html>