Texas Democratic Party v. Abbott
The Court declined to lift a lower court's stay in a case raising unresolved legal questions about the Twenty-Sixth Amendment, which protects the right of citizens 18 and older to vote. Justice Sotomayor agreed with the outcome but urged the appeals court to resolve the underlying legal questions well before Election Day.
How it got here: A lower court issued an injunction in the challengers' favor; that injunction was stayed pending appeal; the Texas Democratic Party applied to the Supreme Court to lift the stay.
The Case in Depth
What happened
The Texas Democratic Party and other challengers brought a lawsuit against Texas Governor Greg Abbott and other state officials, raising what the Court described as novel legal questions under the Twenty-Sixth Amendment — the constitutional provision guaranteeing citizens 18 years and older the right to vote. A lower court had issued an injunction in the challengers' favor, but that injunction was then stayed pending appeal.
The question before the Court
Should the Supreme Court step in on an emergency basis to lift a lower court's stay and address novel Twenty-Sixth Amendment questions before the November 2020 election?
The Court's answer
No — the Court declined to vacate the lower court's stay on an emergency basis. The Court offered no explanation beyond the one-sentence denial, though Justice Sotomayor's statement suggests the justices were reluctant to weigh in on novel Twenty-Sixth Amendment questions for the first time through an emergency application, rather than through the ordinary course of appellate review.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
Voters and election officials in Texas will not see any immediate change as a result of this order, which simply leaves a lower court's stay in place. The underlying legal questions about the Twenty-Sixth Amendment — raised here for what the Court called seemingly the first time — remain unresolved and could still reach the courts before the November 2020 election.
What changes now
The stay of the lower court's injunction remains in place. The case returns to the court of appeals, where Justice Sotomayor urged the judges to consider the Twenty-Sixth Amendment merits promptly and well before the November 2020 election. This order is not a ruling on whether the challenged Texas practices comply with the Twenty-Sixth Amendment; that question remains open.
What this does not decide
The order does not decide whether Texas's voting practices violate the Twenty-Sixth Amendment. It does not address the merits of any Twenty-Sixth Amendment claim. It only declines to lift the lower court's stay on an emergency basis, leaving the underlying lawsuit to proceed through the appeals court.
Concurrences and dissents
Concurrence — Justice Sotomayor
Justice Sotomayor agreed with denying the emergency application but wrote separately to explain why she did not view this as a rejection of the underlying claims. She noted the Twenty-Sixth Amendment questions are weighty and seemingly novel, and she urged the court of appeals to decide the merits of those questions well in advance of the November 2020 election so that voters are not left without a timely answer.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court's only stated basis for the denial is implicit in Justice Sotomayor's statement: addressing novel constitutional questions — here, unresolved questions about the Twenty-Sixth Amendment's scope — for the first time through an emergency application is not an appropriate vehicle.
- Emergency applications to vacate stays are a form of shadow-docket relief, reserved for situations where a lower court's order causes immediate, irreparable harm that outweighs the competing interests. When the underlying legal questions are genuinely novel, the balance typically favors allowing the ordinary appellate process to work first.
- Justice Sotomayor, while agreeing the emergency application was not the right vehicle, signaled that the appeals court should treat the case as urgent and resolve the underlying Twenty-Sixth Amendment merits well in advance of the November 2020 election, implying those questions still warranted serious and timely attention.