Wisconsin's Voter-ID Case Provides a Lesson in Interim Relief | Blogs | Wisconsin Appellate Law

In recent weeks, several high-profile cases involving Wisconsin public policy have come before the Seventh Circuit. In many instances, these cases have provided not only insights on the federal judicial system for the general public, but also reminders for appellate practitioners of the nature of judicial powers.

Last Friday offered another example. The Seventh Circuit in Frank v. Walker, stayed the permanent injunction of Wisconsin’s voter-ID law (Act 23), which the Eastern District of Wisconsin had issued back in April. The appellate panel, composed of Judges Easterbrook, Sykes, and Tinder, took the step just hours after it heard oral argument in the consolidated cases weighing the law’s validity under the Voting Rights Act and under the Constitution.

It is worth emphasizing that the Court of Appeals always has the authority to enter this sort of interim relief. Unless impracticable, a party must move first in the district court. Fed. R. App. P. 8(a). If, however, the district court denies the motion, or fails to grant the requested relief (the situation here), the party may seek a stay of the district court’s judgment or order, or an order “suspending, modifying, restoring, or granting an injunction” pending appeal, from the Court of Appeals. Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)(2)(A).

Here, the court stayed the injunction, stating that “[t]he State of Wisconsin may, if it wishes (and if it is appropriate under rules of state law), enforce the photo ID requirement in this November’s elections.” As an initial matter, the court had grave doubts about the plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits and called the state’s probability of success “sufficiently great” to warrant the stay. The court noted that Wisconsin’s law was “materially identical” to Indiana’s photo-ID law, which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008). But the Seventh Circuit also stressed that the Supreme Court of Wisconsin’s July 31 opinion in Milwaukee Branch of NAACP v. Walker, 2014 WI 98, which had made it easier to obtain the necessary documentation under the law, had “reduce[d] the likelihood of irreparable injury” and “change[d] the balance of equities and thus the propriety of federal injunctive relief.”

The end result: The court stayed an injunction that it evidently thinks never should have been entered in the first place. The wheels of justice need not be slow.

A full opinion from the Seventh Circuit on the case’s merits is yet to come.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.