Count US IN, et al. v. Diego Morales, et al.

No. 26-1783 · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · April 20, 2026 · No. No. 26-1783

Summary

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit granted Indiana's emergency motion to stay a preliminary injunction that had barred enforcement of a law excluding educational-institution identification from acceptable voter identification. The court held that changing voter-eligibility rules during an ongoing election posed serious disruption and federalism concerns under the Purcell principle.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Writing for the Court
Per curiam; Chief Judge Brennan; Circuit Judge Scudder; Circuit Judge Kolar
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Decision date
April 20, 2026
Docket number
No. 26-1783
Procedural posture
Emergency motion by Indiana to stay the district court's preliminary injunction pending appeal.
Standard of review
The court applied the Purcell principle and considered whether the district court's injunction should be stayed pending appeal, concluding that the federalism-related risk of disrupting an ongoing election was dispositive.
Precedential value
Published Seventh Circuit per curiam opinion
Parties
Diego Morales, et al., State of Indiana v. Count US IN, et al.
Disposition
other

Topics

appellate procedureinterlocutory appealelection administrationvoter id lawsfederalism

Practice areas

appellate procedureelection lawconstitutional lawfederalismcivil rights

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Seventh Circuit had appellate jurisdiction over the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction.
  2. Whether Indiana was excused from first seeking a stay in the district court because doing so was impracticable given that early voting was underway and the primary election was imminent.
  3. Whether the district court's preliminary injunction should be stayed pending appeal under the Purcell principle and related stay principles.
  4. Whether the case remained a live case or controversy and whether the student plaintiff and at least one organizational plaintiff had standing.

Holdings

  1. The Seventh Circuit had appellate jurisdiction over the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction.
  2. Indiana was not required to seek a stay first in the district court because doing so was impracticable under the circumstances.
  3. The case remained a live case or controversy, and the student plaintiff had standing; at least one organizational plaintiff also appeared to have associational standing.
  4. The district court's preliminary injunction had to be stayed pending resolution of the appeal because altering voter-eligibility rules after voting had begun created a serious risk of election disruption and violated the Purcell principle.

Key quotations

lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election. (3)
We grant the State’s request for a stay pending the resolution of this appeal. (4)

Factual background

Indiana had long accepted qualifying student identification cards issued by state universities as proof of identification for in-person voting. Senate Bill 10, enacted in April 2025, excluded documents issued by educational institutions from acceptable proof of identification. After early voting for Indiana's May 5, 2026 primary had begun, the district court enjoined enforcement of the law, changing voter eligibility rules during the election.

Procedural history

The plaintiffs sued state and local election officials challenging Indiana Senate Bill 10, which excluded documents issued by educational institutions from the forms of identification accepted for voting. The district court granted a preliminary injunction on April 14, 2026, during Indiana's ongoing primary election. Indiana appealed and moved in the Seventh Circuit for an emergency stay of the injunction; the court granted the motion.

Remand instructions

The court granted the State's request for a stay pending resolution of the appeal and stated that it would enter a separate order setting a briefing schedule.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…