Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Purcell Principles for State Courts
View through CrossRef
In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has stressed that federal courts ordinarily should not issue remedies, such as preliminary injunctions, that would alter the rules for an impending election. This is known as the Purcell principle, and it frequently stymies litigants who seek to redress legal violations ahead of an election. Existing commentary on Purcell, most of it critical, has focused on the federal level. A large and growing share of election litigation, however, occurs in state courts. This Essay surveys pre-election remedial practice and the status of the Purcell principle in state-level litigation. Based on a review of every reported state court decision to have cited Purcell, our key descriptive takeaway is that state courts are not mirroring the U.S. Supreme Court’s strong aversion to pre-election relief. Instead, they have taken a more nuanced and context-specific approach. Conceptually, we explain that there is good reason for state courts to chart their own course in this area— something they are free to do since the Purcell principle is an equitable doctrine by and for federal courts. The federalism concerns that partly undergird the Purcell principle do not apply to state courts, and state courts have distinctive powers and duties that make a blanket presumption against pre-election intervention inappropriate. Prescriptively, building on existing state caselaw and academic commentary, we identify several considerations for state courts to weigh as they decide whether to grant pre-election remedies. These considerations, which we refer to as Purcell principles for state courts, aim to get at each case’s underlying equities and help courts discern whether, on balance, intervention ahead of an election is warranted. This Essay concludes by discussing how the federal Purcell principle impacts pre-election U.S. Supreme Court review of state court remedial rulings, such as when litigants ask the Court for emergency relief on the ground that a state court violated the Federal Constitution’s Elections Clause.
Title: Purcell Principles for State Courts
Description:
In recent years, the U.
S.
Supreme Court has stressed that federal courts ordinarily should not issue remedies, such as preliminary injunctions, that would alter the rules for an impending election.
This is known as the Purcell principle, and it frequently stymies litigants who seek to redress legal violations ahead of an election.
Existing commentary on Purcell, most of it critical, has focused on the federal level.
A large and growing share of election litigation, however, occurs in state courts.
This Essay surveys pre-election remedial practice and the status of the Purcell principle in state-level litigation.
Based on a review of every reported state court decision to have cited Purcell, our key descriptive takeaway is that state courts are not mirroring the U.
S.
Supreme Court’s strong aversion to pre-election relief.
Instead, they have taken a more nuanced and context-specific approach.
Conceptually, we explain that there is good reason for state courts to chart their own course in this area— something they are free to do since the Purcell principle is an equitable doctrine by and for federal courts.
The federalism concerns that partly undergird the Purcell principle do not apply to state courts, and state courts have distinctive powers and duties that make a blanket presumption against pre-election intervention inappropriate.
Prescriptively, building on existing state caselaw and academic commentary, we identify several considerations for state courts to weigh as they decide whether to grant pre-election remedies.
These considerations, which we refer to as Purcell principles for state courts, aim to get at each case’s underlying equities and help courts discern whether, on balance, intervention ahead of an election is warranted.
This Essay concludes by discussing how the federal Purcell principle impacts pre-election U.
S.
Supreme Court review of state court remedial rulings, such as when litigants ask the Court for emergency relief on the ground that a state court violated the Federal Constitution’s Elections Clause.
Related Results
Henry Purcell: Towards a Tercentenary
Henry Purcell: Towards a Tercentenary
Abstract
We all pay lip service to Henry Purcell, but what do we really know of himã The words are those of Ralph Vaughan Williams, in the Foreword to Eight Concerts...
Autonomy on Trial
Autonomy on Trial
Photo by CHUTTERSNAP on Unsplash
Abstract
This paper critically examines how US bioethics and health law conceptualize patient autonomy, contrasting the rights-based, individualist...
Oleynikov v. Russia
Oleynikov v. Russia
Human rights — State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Civil proceedings against foreign State for repayment of debt arising under loan agreement — Organ of State — Embassy of f...
Gods! I can never this endure: madness made manifest in the songs of Henry Purcell (16591695) and Henry Carey (16891743)
Gods! I can never this endure: madness made manifest in the songs of Henry Purcell (16591695) and Henry Carey (16891743)
The seventeenth-century English mad song reached a pinnacle with the work of Henry Purcell (16591695), whose compositional innovations within that genre continued to be employed lo...
Features of the jurisdiction of economic courts
Features of the jurisdiction of economic courts
The article considers the problem of determining the jurisdiction of commercial courts. It is proved that jurisdiction should be considered depending on the theoretical model of sp...
The Purcell Compendium
The Purcell Compendium
Ground breaking and comprehensive reference volume covering an extensive range of Purcell studies, including his life and works, his milieu and the reception of his music to the pr...
Maclaine Watson & Co Ltd v. Department of Trade and Industry J H Rayner (Mincing Lane) Ltd v. Department of Trade and Industry and Others, and Related Appeals
Maclaine Watson & Co Ltd v. Department of Trade and Industry J H Rayner (Mincing Lane) Ltd v. Department of Trade and Industry and Others, and Related Appeals
International organizations — Personality — Concept of international legal personality — Whether organization a legal entity distinct from its members — Whether personality of orga...
Envisioning Originalism Applied to Bioethics Cases
Envisioning Originalism Applied to Bioethics Cases
Photo ID 123697425 © Alexandersikov | Dreamstime.com
Abstract
Originalism is an increasingly prevalent method for interpreting provisions of the US Constitution. It requires strict...

