## Facts

- Alabama’s Secretary of State maintained a statewide policy prohibiting counties from offering curbside (drive-through) voting for in-person voters.
- During the COVID-19 pandemic, disability-rights organizations and medically vulnerable Alabama voters challenged multiple voting practices, including the curbside-voting ban.
- After expedited proceedings and a September 2020 trial, a federal district court entered a permanent injunction that, as applied to certain disabled voters facing heightened COVID-19 risk, barred enforcement of the statewide prohibition and allowed willing counties to offer curbside voting.
- The district court concluded that permitting curbside voting in willing counties was a reasonable accommodation and that the statewide ban violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as applied.
- The Eleventh Circuit declined to stay the injunction while the state’s appeal proceeded.
- Alabama state officials sought emergency relief in the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the injunction for the impending election.

## Issues

1. Whether the Supreme Court should stay, pending appeal, the district court’s permanent injunction that prevented enforcement of Alabama’s statewide curbside-voting prohibition.
2. Whether the district court likely erred in concluding that the statewide curbside-voting ban violated the ADA as applied to voters with disabilities facing heightened COVID-19 risks.
3. How emergency stay standards apply when a lower court alters election administration close to an election.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court granted the state officials’ emergency application for a stay.
- The district court’s injunction was stayed pending disposition of the appeal in the Eleventh Circuit and, if timely sought, disposition of any petition for certiorari.
- The Court issued no merits opinion explaining its reasoning.
- Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Breyer and Kagan, dissented, arguing the district court’s record-based and narrow order should not have been disturbed.

## Legal Principles

- A Supreme Court stay pending appeal preserves the status quo during appellate review and is governed by equitable factors, including likelihood of success, irreparable harm, and the public interest, even when the Court’s order does not explain its analysis.
- Federal courts may order ADA-based modifications to state election practices where necessary to avoid denying voters with disabilities meaningful access, subject to limits such as undue burden and fundamental alteration.
- In election cases near an election, emergency relief can effectively determine which voting rules govern the imminent election, even without a final merits decision.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court stayed a district court injunction that would have allowed curbside voting in willing Alabama counties as an ADA accommodation during COVID-19, leaving the state’s prohibition in place while appellate proceedings continued.


Merrill v. People First of Ala., 141 S. Ct. 25 (2020)