Respectfully disagree with
@jamalgreene and @Jaime_ASantos on whether this was a close one. From my perspective, #SCOTUS's Wisconsin ruling was simply an exercise of judicial power that flouted basic rules of judicial decisionmaking. Here's why: https://twitter.com/Jaime_ASantos/status/1247885073807884289

First, a court is supposed to describe the legal standard and then apply it. Yet, #SCOTUS's decision does not even mention the standard for granting a stay pending appeal. You know something is wrong when you read an opinion and don't know the legal standard after reading it.

That allowed the Court to mischaracterize the question before it as "technical question about the absentee ballot process." That was the question before the district court. The sole question before #SCOTUS was whether the petitioner met its significant burden to obtain a stay.

Second, the Court relied on Purcell to suggest that courts should not intervene close to an election. But in Purcell, the Ninth Circuit overturned a district court decision *not* to intervene. In that case, #SCOTUS criticized the lack of deference to the district court:

From Purcell: "It was still necessary . . . for the Court of Appeals to give deference to the discretion of the District Court. We find no indication that it did so, and we conclude this was error."

(This Court apparently has no sense of irony.)

Third, the Court says it "is a critical point in the
case," that plaintiffs hadn't initially requested part of the relief entered by the district court. But why is that critical? This was a rapidly evolving situation, and plaintiffs asked for exactly that relief at the hearing.

The majority cites no case, no treatise, no anything to suggest this was a "critical point in the case" cutting against Plaintiffs. The Court just said so. That is the exercise of judicial power, not rule-of-law based decisionmaking.