Ketanji Brown Jackson

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.

Significant real-world harms can follow Supreme Court stay rulings, and when the court’s orders do not acknowledge that reality, they seem oblivious and ring hollow,

Why is it that one party should get a fast pass to the Supreme Court of the United States, when so many other parties are queued up, waiting patiently for the court’s attention?

To be sure, the Court has not foreclosed States from challenging this blatantly unconstitutional Order.

Taking its eye off the ball, the majority misses the Government’s actual objective: to secure our imprimatur for its effort to foment chaos ahead of the November elections.

The Court’s disposition of this application does not mean that any measure taken by the Government to implement the Order will necessarily be lawful.

The consequences of allowing such transformative changes to take effect so close to this fall’s elections would be extreme.

This ruling violates well-established precedents concerning this Court’s equitable discretion and needlessly injects chaos and uncertainty into the upcoming midterm elections.

And the hardest part for judges is that we really cannot participate.

You know, there are lots of limits on what judges can do, and I try to be very, very mindful and scrupulous with respect to that because, as you say, our obligation is to be unbiased in our approach.

When I get invitations to do things, I always have them screened by the legal office, the public information office, just to make sure that there are no ethical conflicts, that this is not a fundraiser, you know.