Brunner v. Ohio Republican Party, 555 U. S. ____ (2008)
[align=center] Per Curiam
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 08A332
JENNIFER BRUNNER, OHIO SECRETARY OF STATE
v. OHIO REPUBLICAN PARTY ET AL.
ON APPLICATION FOR STAY
[October 17, 2008]
PER CURIAM.
On October 9, 2008, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio entered a temporary restraining order (TRO) directing Jennifer Brunner, theOhio Secretary of State, to update Ohio’s Statewide VoterRegistration Database (SWVRD) to comply with Section303 of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), 116 Stat. 1708, 42 U. S. C. §15483(a)(5)(B)(i).* The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied the Secretary’s motion to vacate the TRO. The Secretary has filed an application to stay the TRO with JUSTICE STEVENS as Circuit Justice for the Sixth Circuit, and he has referred the matter to the Court. The Secretary argues both that the District Court had no jurisdiction to center the TRO and that its ruling on the merits was erroneous. We express no opinion on the question whether HAVA is being properly implemented. Respondents,however, are not sufficiently likely to prevail on the question whether Congress has authorized the District Courtto enforce Section 303 in an action brought by a private litigant to justify the issuance of a TRO. See Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U. S. 273, 283 (2002); Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U. S. 275, 286 (2001). We therefore grantthe application for a stay and vacate the TRO.
It is so ordered.
*Title 42 U. S. C. §15483(a)(5)(B)(i) (2000 ed., Supp. V) states, inrelevant part:
“The chief State election official and the official responsible for theState motor vehicle authority of a State shall enter into an agreement to match information in the database of the statewide voter registrationsystem with information in the database of the motor vehicle authorityto the extent required to enable each such official to verify the accuracyof the information provided on applications for voter registration.”
[/align]
