Moritz has posted the order here. Particularly interesting in the brief concurring opinion which expresses doubts that the district court abused its discretion in enjoining what the concurring opinion calls “the state’s overly broad criminalization of conduct intended to assist disabled voters and its resulting disqualification of disabled voters’ mail-in ballots.” But the Fifth Circuit, much like the Sixth Circuit in the voter i.d. case decided last week, reads the signal from the Supreme Court’s opinion in Purcell v. Gonzalez as discouraging court injunctions close to an election. This is exactly as I feared.
UPDATE: The plaintiffs have filed an emergency stay application with the Supreme Court. It makes the nice point that the case parallels Purcell in that both appellate courts failed to give any reasons for not deferring to the trial court’s decision on the preliminary injunction (though in the Fifth Circuit case, the concurring judge did give reasons).