A reader writes:

There are some unusual procedural aspects of Hayden, the recent Second Circuit case on felon disenfranchisement, that suggest no immediate Supreme Court review.
The en banc court granted review of Hayden before the 3-judge panel heard the appeal. It did so by consolidating the case with Muntaqim, another VRA challenge in which the panel (Cabranas) had ruled that the VRA did not apply to felon disenfranchisement statutes. It turned out after consolidation, however, that Muntaqim didn’t have standing. So the en banc court dismissed Muntaqim and ruled only on Hayden.
Unlike Muntaqim, the Hayden case (brought by the NAACP) also included a 14th Amendment intentional discrimination claim. The district court dismissed that claim, a holding that Hayden also appealed. The matter had been briefed for a 3-judge panel when the case was consolidated with Muntaqim.
While Cabranes’s en banc opinion wasn’t clear about the matter (it remanded the case to the district court), I would think that the next step in Hayden is back to a 3-judge panel for a ruling on the constitutional claim. And then possibly back to the district court.
While the Supreme Court might accept an immediate appeal, the usual prudential reasons suggest that it would allow Hayden to work its way through to a final decision before considerig an appeal of the en banc decision.

Thanks for writing!