The U.S. Supreme Court temporarily greenlit a New Hampshire directive on Thursday that prohibits the use and acceptance of student IDs in elections. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the lone dissent in the case.
In its new order, the high court granted an emergency application by New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan to temporarily pause a ruling by U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante. The Bush 43 appointee issued a preliminary injunction earlier this month blocking an April directive by Scanlan that said eligible voters can’t use student IDs as proof of identification when registering to vote, filing a request for an absentee ballot, or voting at a polling place.
According to local media, the secretary’s edict was issued to supplement a bill signed into law that same month by New Hampshire Gov. Kelly Ayotte that “made student IDs a no longer valid form of identification to obtain a ballot.” Bill co-sponsor and Republican State Rep. Ross Berry said the measure is necessary to ensure transparent and fair elections.
“Student IDs have no address verification,” Berry reportedly wrote at the time. “No citizenship check. No security features. They were the weakest link in our election integrity framework, and now that loophole is closed.”
Laplante’s injunction blocking Scanlan’s directive came at the request of several left-wing groups, including the state’s League of Women Voters chapter. The activist organizations claimed that the law is “unconstitutional and unnecessary.”
Scanlan filed an emergency request with the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals to pause Laplante’s order and permit his directive to take effect for the 2026 general election. The appellate court declined to do so (2-1) on Oct. 14, prompting the secretary to appeal to SCOTUS.
In its Thursday ruling, the Supreme Court cited the Purcell principle, which states that federal courts should avoid altering state election rules too close to an election. “Here,” the high court wrote, “the District Court did not point to anything that would justify deviating from that principle.”
In her dissent, Jackson argued that the order at issue in Scanlan “does not necessarily fall within the ambit of Purcell and its concern about federal courts ‘changing the election rules’ at the last minute.” She suggested that Laplante’s directive was not aimed at changing the law, but at “correcting a publicized misstatement about what New Hampshire’s election rules require was necessary to ensure that certain citizens were not unduly burdened in their exercise of the fundamental right to vote.”
“So [the district court] issued a targeted order, requiring only that the relevant government official conform his public statements to the letter of state law rather than summarizing what the law required in a manner that could mislead voters and local election workers,” Jackson wrote. “Consequently, here, the District Court’s injunction was reasonably designed to address alleged misinformation, not to change the law. Under such circumstances, the relief the District Court provided actually promoted the interests Purcell sought to protect.”
“I respectfully dissent because — even, and perhaps especially, when an election is looming — I would not disturb a clearly justifiable federal-court order issued to ensure that the public receives accurate information about a State’s electoral processes,” she added.
According to Thursday’s decision, Laplante’s blockade is “stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such a writ is timely sought.” The Supreme Court’s pause will terminate if a petition to SCOTUS is denied by the high court or if SCOTUS agrees to consider the matter and issue a judgment on the merits of the case.
