Michael Morley has written this extensive analysis of today’s developments, which begins:

This post offers a new perspective on the Supreme Court’s emergency order in Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee, No. 19A1016 (U.S. Apr. 6, 2020). It explains that the Court correctly mandated a higher showing for election postponements, which extend or change the deadline for casting votes to subsequent days, than for other types of modifications to election-related rules.  The Court had not previously articulated that principle before, however.  Thus, under the circumstances of this case, the Court should not have relied on it to reverse the lower court’s ruling.   Moreover, the ruling confirms that the Court will enforce the Purcell Principle on a categorical basis, presumptively reversing election-related injunctions that lower courts issue too close to an election rather than applying the traditional equitable factors governing stays.  The Court must recognize, however, that the Purcell Principle cannot fully apply in the context of election emergencies, which by their nature require responses to unexpected threats to the electoral process.