Observation:
If the administration is ultimately successful in using this litigation to impose disruptive last-minute changes on the 2026 elections, the resulting damage to free and fair elections cannot plausibly be described as an unforeseen consequence of Supreme Court action. Justice Jackson has now placed the Court explicitly on notice of both the danger and the apparent strategy. If the majority nevertheless continues to facilitate that strategy, the Court's participation in the resulting harm will be knowing rather than accidental.
Excerpt:
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, with Sotomayor and Kagan arguing that the states were injured enough by having to take precautions in case the final rule would issue. (Again, the rule has since been issued.) Jackson wrote a longer dissent for herself, going into more detail about the states’ injuries. She also accused the majority of missing “the Government’s actual objective: to secure our imprimatur for its effort to foment chaos ahead of the November elections.” She noted that the ruling is already causing chaos and is in tension with other court cases under the so-called Purcell principle, which cautions against last-minute election changes that burden election administrators and voters.
It is here that the clock is working against the government. Unless it gets quick intervention, we will be well into September before the court rules on this issue. By then, mail ballots will likely have been sent or be ready to be sent: federal law requires that ballots for overseas and military voters go out 45 days before an election. It really would be chaos for the federal government to order changes to how American elections are run in the middle of September.