140 S. Ct. 2600
SCOTUS2020Background
- In 2018 Florida amended its constitution to restore voting rights to people with felony convictions who have completed "all terms" of their sentence; Florida interpreted that to require payment of all legal financial obligations (LFOs).
- Plaintiffs — indigent formerly convicted persons — sued, alleging the pay-to-vote scheme violates the Equal Protection Clause, Due Process Clause, and the Twenty-fourth Amendment.
- In Oct. 2019 a federal district court entered a preliminary injunction and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed (Jones I), finding plaintiffs likely to succeed on equal protection grounds as applied to indigent persons.
- Following an 8-day bench trial, the district court (May 24, 2020) issued a permanent injunction (Jones II), finding violations of equal protection, due process (unreliable LFO records and notice), and the Twenty-fourth Amendment, and ordered remedies including a rebuttable presumption of inability to pay and an advisory-opinion process.
- On July 1, 2020 the Eleventh Circuit stayed the permanent injunction pending appeal, issuing no explanation; that stay came 19 days before Florida’s voter-registration deadline for the August primary.
- The Supreme Court denied an application to vacate the Eleventh Circuit’s stay; Justice Sotomayor (joined by Justices Ginsburg and Kagan) dissented, arguing the stay should have been vacated under Coleman and Purcell principles to avoid mass disenfranchisement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equal Protection — wealth discrimination | Florida’s LFO requirement creates an unconstitutional wealth barrier to voting; indigent people are singled out. | Requirement is a permissible eligibility condition tied to completion of sentence. | District Court: violation found; Eleventh Circuit previously agreed plaintiffs likely to succeed; SCOTUS: denied vacatur of appellate stay (no explanation). |
| Due Process — notice and record reliability | State records are incomplete/unreliable; many cannot know amounts owed, so process is unconstitutional. | State procedures are adequate to determine and notify voters of LFO status. | District Court: due process violation found; SCOTUS denied vacatur of stay leaving injunction stayed. |
| Twenty-fourth Amendment — poll tax | LFOs function as a tax that conditions the franchise on payment, violating the Twenty-fourth Amendment. | Payments are part of criminal sentence/penal obligations, not an unconstitutional tax on voting. | District Court: held Twenty-fourth Amendment violation; SCOTUS denied vacatur. |
| Relief and vacatur standard (Coleman/Purcell) | Vacatur required because nearly a million would be disenfranchised, district findings deserved deference, and Eleventh Circuit’s unexplained stay disrupts settled law. | State and Eleventh Circuit implied administrative and legal harms justify stay pending appeal. | Supreme Court majority: denied application to vacate stay; Sotomayor dissent: would grant vacatur, finding Coleman factors met and Eleventh Circuit "demonstrably wrong." |
Key Cases Cited
- Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006) (courts should avoid last-minute changes that create voter confusion or chill turnout)
- Coleman v. Paccar Inc., 424 U.S. 1301 (1976) (standards for vacating an appellate-court stay presented in-chambers)
- Frank v. Walker, 574 U.S. 929 (2014) (vacatur of an appellate stay in a voting-rights context)
- Jones v. Governor of Fla., 950 F.3d 795 (11th Cir. 2020) (Eleventh Circuit decision addressing equal protection as applied to indigent felons)