As a result, the Ninth Circuit's October temporary order had the effect of changing the rules for the November election.
[10] Ginsburg, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, thought that the court of appeals in that case had overemphasized Purcell and failed to properly apply the established standards, such as likelihood of success on the merits.
Kavanaugh suggested a set of heightened criteria that he believed are necessary for plaintiffs to overcome the Purcell principle.
[11][12] Law professor Richard L. Hasen argued that the Purcell principle should be part of the public interest factor of the traditional multi-factor standard, and not a stand-alone rule.
[3] University of Texas law professor Steve Vladeck found it "troubling" that "by departing from the traditional standard, Purcell removes from the equation the possibility that, as disruptive as an injunction might be, freezing (or not issuing) it would be worse.
The four-justice dissent also cited Purcell, instead arguing that the Supreme Court's own intervention was even closer to the election and an even less appropriate change to the status quo.