Respect Maine PAC v. McKee

Background

People challenging a Maine campaign public-financing law asked a Justice to issue an injunction to stop the law from being enforced shortly before an election. The challengers pointed to an earlier case involving a similar Arizona law, but here they sought a court order that would prevent the state law from taking effect.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the court should grant an extraordinary injunction—an emergency court order that would block enforcement of a presumptively valid state law—so close to the election. The Court explained that asking for an injunction requires a much stronger justification than asking for a temporary pause in an appeals court decision, because an injunction actively changes the status quo that lower courts left in place. The Court also noted practical difficulties in shaping relief so near an election and concluded the challengers did not meet the high showing needed, so their application was denied.

Real world impact

As a result, the Maine matching-funds law remains enforceable while the legal fight continues, and candidates and public financing administrators must operate under the law during the election period. The denial is an emergency procedural ruling, not a final decision on the law’s validity, so the underlying dispute may still be decided later on the merits.

Dissents or concurrances

Two Justices—Scalia and Alito—would have granted the injunction but only as to the law’s matching-fund provisions, reflecting a narrower view that some emergency relief should be available for those specific parts of the law.