Writing in Reason, a legal commentator offers a skeptical take on the Supreme Court's recent order in the Missouri case. The commentator notes that the Court addressed standing only in a footnote, and remains unconvinced that any of the parties actually had standing—despite at least five justices disagreeing, including the Court's leading proceduralist.
The commentator also questions whether the three related orders were truly unanimous. While the per curiam noted that Justice Kavanaugh's prior orders had no noted dissents, the commentator suggests Justices Thomas and Alito may have simply chosen not to alienate Kavanaugh. The piece further criticizes the Court's claim that the ruling was not a surprise, calling that point gratuitous given the lack of explanation in earlier summary rulings.
Finally, the commentator sees the decision as an "ironclad Purcell ruling" that conservatives will cite for years, and believes the justices felt compelled to "smack down" the 8th Circuit. The concession that the merits are unclear is viewed as the price of unanimity. The author admits being wrong about the "lightning docket" and concludes the Court likely wanted a strong, unified statement on election-law intervention.