You can find the opinion here, coming from the most radical panel of the judges on the Fifth Circuit (and that of course is saying something). I am on multiple deadlines, so a full analysis of the merits will have to wait. Suffice it to say that federal law has left this to the states, and requiring that people vote by election day is not the same as saying their ballots must be received by election day. Every other court to face these cases has rejected this argument.

The important point for now is that the panel did not put this ruling into effect for this election. They’ve remanded it to the lower court to consider the issue in light of the federal rule in Purcell and otherwise about late changes in election rules:

Today’s decision says nothing about remedies. We decline to grant plaintiffs’ initial request for a permanent injunction, which they have not re- newed before this court. See GOP Reply Br. at 2, MSLP Reply Br. at 22. Instead, we remand to the district court for further proceedings to fashion appropriate relief, giving due consideration to “the value of preserving the status quo in a voting case on the eve of an election.” Tex. All.for Retired Ams. 2. Hughs, 976 F.3d 564, 567 (sth Cir. 2020); see also Purcell ». Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1(2006).

I would be very surprised if any court changed the rules for Mississippi at this late date, and even more surprised if such an order would survive Supreme Court review—much less seeing this ruling extended to other states for this election.

But it does show you that sometimes cases only become important when judges do things that are entirely unexpected. I guess we should expect more of that going forward.