Supreme Court Stays Ruling on New Hampshire Student ID Voting Guidance, What the October 22, 2026 Order Does and Doesn’t Decide

On Thursday, October 22, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court granted New Hampshire’s emergency request to pause a federal judge’s ruling about student IDs and voting. Less than two weeks before the November 3 election, that leaves the Secretary of State’s guidance on student IDs free of the court order that had required him to change it.

News coverage has described the result in different ways, from a “limit” on student IDs to a “ban.” The order itself is narrower. It does not decide whether New Hampshire’s law is constitutional, and it does not decide what that law means. This article explains what the Court said, what the law does, and what each side argued.

Scanlan v. Coalition for Open Democracy Quick Facts (No. 26A512)

Item	Detail
Court	U.S. Supreme Court, emergency application for a stay
Order date	October 22, 2026 (unsigned order)
Applicants	New Hampshire Secretary of State David M. Scanlan and Attorney General John Formella
Respondent	Coalition for Open Democracy, a nonprofit voting-rights organization
Noted dissent	Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. The order lists no other noted dissents and no vote count.
Lower-court case	Coalition for Open Democracy v. Scanlan, No. 1:26-cv-647 (D.N.H.), Judge Joseph Laplante; appeal No. 26-2132 (1st Cir.)
What was stayed	The district court’s October 2 and October 5, 2026 preliminary-injunction orders
How long the stay lasts	Until the First Circuit appeal and any timely certiorari petition are resolved. If certiorari is denied, the stay ends automatically. If certiorari is granted, it ends when the Supreme Court’s judgment is sent down.
New Hampshire law at issue	HB 323 (Laws of 2026, ch. 20), amending RSA 659:13
Claims in the lawsuit	First, Fourteenth and Twenty-Sixth Amendments and the New Hampshire Constitution
Election date	November 3, 2026

What the Supreme Court’s October 22 Order Says

The order is one paragraph. It rests on the Purcell principle, the idea that lower federal courts should ordinarily not change election rules close to an election. The Court quoted its 2020 decision in Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee, 589 U.S. 423, 424 (2020), saying lower federal courts “should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election.” It said the district court “did not point to anything that would justify deviating from that principle,” and cited People Not Politicians v. Onder, 609 U.S. ___ (Sept. 25, 2026).

The Court did not address the constitutional claims and did not interpret New Hampshire’s statutes.

Justice Jackson’s Dissent in Scanlan v. Coalition for Open Democracy

Justice Jackson wrote that Purcell itself involved a federal order that completely blocked a state voter-ID statute, and that the Court has not fully defined the principle’s limits. In her view, an order that “left the state election rule untouched” does not necessarily fall within Purcell. She described the district court as having determined that correcting a publicized misstatement about what New Hampshire’s election rules require was necessary to avoid unduly burdening voters. She wrote that the injunction was “reasonably designed to address alleged misinformation, not to change the law,” and that an injunction against misleading statements about election rules prevents confusion instead of causing it.

Her footnote says the district court found, based on the statute’s text and three days of hearings, that the Secretary’s public guidance was “at best, misleading,” and that New Hampshire’s Deputy Secretary of State conceded he saw no factual reason a student ID could not be reasonable evidence of identity under the state’s safety valve.

What New Hampshire’s HB 323 Does, and Why There Are Two Separate Disputes

The case involves two different things that are easy to blur together.

The law. Governor Kelly Ayotte signed HB 323 on April 3, 2026, and it took effect June 2, 2026. It removed student ID cards from the list of identification accepted to obtain a ballot, leaving government-issued photo ID as the listed proof of identity. The district court did not block that part of the law for the November election.

The Secretary of State’s directive. On April 23, 2026, Secretary Scanlan’s office issued a press release and an email telling election officials that student IDs could not be used as proof of ID when registering to vote, requesting an absentee ballot or checking in to vote. New Hampshire law also has “safety valve” provisions, cited in the dissent as RSA 659:13(I)(c) and RSA 654:12(I)(d)(4), that let election officials verify a voter’s identity using other evidence when the voter lacks a listed photo ID. The district court found the directive reached further than the statute because it barred officials from considering student IDs for any purpose, including under those provisions.

The injunction the Supreme Court stayed targeted only the directive, to the extent it prohibited or discouraged officials from considering student IDs as evidence under the safety valves. It also ordered the Secretary to issue revised guidance saying so. HB 323 itself was never enjoined.

What New Hampshire Allowed Before HB 323

Before the law took effect, a student ID could be used to establish identity if it met the statute’s requirements, including a name, photograph and an issuance or expiration rule, and came from a qualifying institution. A student ID established identity only. Citizenship, age and domicile for registration are separate requirements.

Why the District Court Ruled the Way It Did

Judge Laplante denied preliminary relief against HB 323 itself for both the September 8 primary and the November election, finding the plaintiff had not shown at that stage that it would likely prove the statute unconstitutional. On October 2 he found the plaintiff likely to succeed in challenging the Secretary’s directive because it went further than the statute.

According to the Coalition’s Supreme Court brief, the district court also found that the burden on student voters was “minimal, but not de minimis,” that there was evidence of at least one voter being disenfranchised, and that the State offered no interest specific to the directive. Those findings are quoted from the Coalition’s brief. They have not been independently confirmed here.

What the Coalition for Open Democracy Argued

The Coalition sued on August 11, 2026. According to the State’s application, the complaint alleges that HB 323 violates the First, Fourteenth and Twenty-Sixth Amendments and the New Hampshire Constitution. In the Supreme Court it argued that:

• No statute was enjoined, and the injunction only held the Secretary to the legislature’s actual text.
• The Secretary had already issued revised guidance, which made the revised guidance the status quo.
• The Purcell principle supports leaving the ruling in place, not overturning it.

What New Hampshire Argued

The State argued that the district court’s order came 32 days before the general election and reversed months of training and public messaging. Its application says the Secretary’s office trained local election officials, updated manuals, posted polling-place signs, ran radio ads and published student voting guides, all consistent with the original guidance. It also argued that:

• The Coalition waited 130 days after HB 323 was signed to sue.
• The district court misread New Hampshire law, and state courts are the final word on state law.
• “Re-educating local election officials and the public in a short time” risks voter confusion and inconsistent application.

The Republican National Committee filed an amicus brief supporting the stay. After the order, Attorney General Formella said the State will keep defending its election laws.

Legal Standards Behind the New Hampshire Student ID Case

The Purcell Principle: Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006)

Purcell holds that courts weighing orders that change election rules close to an election should consider whether the order itself could cause voter confusion or discourage people from voting. Its limits are debated, as Justice Jackson’s dissent shows.

Stays Pending Appeal

A stay pauses a lower-court order while an appeal goes forward. It is not a ruling on the merits. Stay applications to the Supreme Court are generally considered under factors such as the likelihood the Court would hear the case, the fair prospect of reversal, irreparable harm and the balance of equities. This order did not walk through those factors and relied on Purcell.

Anderson-Burdick Balancing and Crawford v. Marion County Election Board

Courts weigh the burden an election rule places on voters against the state’s interests under the framework from Anderson v. Celebrezze (1983) and Burdick v. Takushi (1992). In Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008), the Supreme Court rejected a facial challenge to Indiana’s photo ID law by a 6-3 vote. Reports describe the New Hampshire case as the first involving a student ID restriction on voting to reach the Supreme Court.

First, Fourteenth and Twenty-Sixth Amendments

The First and Fourteenth Amendments protect political participation and equal protection. The Twenty-Sixth Amendment bars denying or abridging the right to vote of citizens 18 or older on account of age. The plaintiffs argue the restrictions burden younger voters who may rely on school-issued ID. The State defends HB 323 as a valid election-administration measure. None of these claims has been finally decided.

New Hampshire Statutes: RSA 659:13 and RSA 654:12

RSA 659:13 governs obtaining a ballot and lists accepted photo IDs. RSA 654:12 covers registration. The district court’s reasoning turned on how these provisions’ safety valves interact with HB 323.

How the Student ID Case Reached the Supreme Court: Timeline

Date	Event
April 3, 2026	Governor Ayotte signs HB 323
April 23, 2026	Secretary of State issues student ID guidance
June 2, 2026	HB 323 takes effect
August 11, 2026	Coalition for Open Democracy sues in federal court
August 31 to September 1, 2026	Hearing and order denying relief for the September 8 primary under Purcell
October 2 and 5, 2026	District court enjoins the directive in part; HB 323 left in place
October 7, 2026	First Circuit denies an emergency stay request without prejudice; district court denies a stay
October 14, 2026	First Circuit denies a stay, reported as 2-1
October 15, 2026	State files emergency application at the Supreme Court
October 16, 2026	Republican National Committee files amicus brief
October 19, 2026	Coalition files its opposition
October 22, 2026	Supreme Court grants the stay; Justice Jackson dissents
November 3, 2026	General election

What the Stay Means for New Hampshire Voters

From the order and the briefs, the practical picture is:

• HB 323’s removal of student IDs from the list of accepted IDs was in effect before the order and remains in effect.
• The court order that required the Secretary to say officials may consider student IDs alongside other evidence is paused.
• The order does not say what the Secretary’s guidance must now say. Before the order, his website had been updated to reflect the district court ruling. I could not confirm what it says now, and it may change.
• The lawsuit and the First Circuit appeal continue.

What ID Can New Hampshire Voters Use Instead of a Student ID?

The accepted photo IDs listed under RSA 659:13 include a driver’s license, a qualifying non-driver ID, a New Hampshire photo ID card issued for voting, a U.S. Armed Services ID and a U.S. passport or passport card. Under the statute, a qualifying ID can generally be used up to five years after it expires, and voters 65 or older can use an otherwise qualifying ID regardless of expiration date. Confirm current rules in the statute.

The New Hampshire DMV issues a free photo ID card for voting. A voucher is available from a town or city clerk or the Secretary of State. See the Secretary of State’s page on proof of voter registration qualifications.

What If a Voter Has No Accepted Photo ID?

State law has a fallback procedure through the supervisor of the checklist, who can verify identity using other evidence. Whether and how a student ID may be considered in that process is the exact question the stay leaves to the Secretary’s guidance and the courts. Voters with questions should contact their town or city clerk before November 3, since guidance has changed more than once this month.

What Happens Next in the New Hampshire Student ID Litigation

1. First Circuit appeal. The court of appeals will consider the State’s challenge to the preliminary injunction.
2. Possible Supreme Court review. A party may seek certiorari after the First Circuit rules.
3. District court proceedings. The case continues toward a decision on the merits, including the challenge to HB 323.
4. Updated guidance. New Hampshire officials may issue new instructions in light of the stay.

No court has finally ruled that HB 323 or the directive is constitutional or unconstitutional.

More Voting-Rule Litigation Covered by AllAboutLawyer

For broader context on rule changes and court challenges before the midterms, see Voting Rules And Legal Challenges Ahead Of The 2026 Midterms, The Complete Picture.

Other election-law disputes include Federal Judge Blocks DOJ Voter-Roll Checks, What the Ruling Means for Voters and Their Privacy, which concerns a federal voter-roll policy, and Texas Mail-In Voting Lawsuit, SB 1 ID Rules Restored, which concerns ID rules for mail-in ballots. The laws and facts differ from the New Hampshire case.

Frequently Asked Questions About the Supreme Court’s New Hampshire Student ID Order

Did the Supreme Court rule that New Hampshire’s student ID law is constitutional?

No. It granted a stay. The constitutional claims have not been decided at the Supreme Court.

Did the Supreme Court ban student IDs for voting in New Hampshire?

The order does not use that language. HB 323 itself removed student IDs from the list of accepted IDs and was never enjoined. The stay pauses the district court order that had required the Secretary’s guidance to allow student IDs to be considered under the safety valves. How the guidance applies at the polls is a matter for New Hampshire officials.

Who dissented in Scanlan v. Coalition for Open Democracy?

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. The order lists no vote count and no other noted dissent.

What is the Supreme Court case number?

No. 26A512, David M. Scanlan, Secretary of State of New Hampshire, et al. v. Coalition for Open Democracy. The lower-court case is No. 1:26-cv-647 (D.N.H.), and the appeal is No. 26-2132 (1st Cir.).

Can college students in New Hampshire use student IDs to vote on November 3, 2026?

A student ID is not one of the photo IDs listed in HB 323. Whether officials may consider it as other evidence under the safety valves is governed by the Secretary’s guidance now that the court order requiring it is stayed. Contact your town or city clerk before Election Day.

Does the order affect voters outside New Hampshire?

No. It concerns New Hampshire’s law and officials. Other states have their own voter ID rules.

Is the case over?

No. The stay stays in place through the First Circuit appeal and any certiorari proceedings, and the district court case continues.

Official Sources and Legal References

1. Order, Scanlan v. Coalition for Open Democracy, No. 26A512 (U.S. Oct. 22, 2026), with Justice Jackson’s dissent: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/26pdf/26a512_6j37.pdf
2. Supreme Court docket, No. 26A512: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26A512.html
3. Emergency Application to Stay, No. 26A512 (Oct. 15, 2026): https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/26/26A512/429592/20261015080421013_Coalition%20for%20Open%20Democracy%20-%20SCOTUS%20Stay%20Application.pdf
4. Appendix to the Application, including the district court and First Circuit orders: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/26/26A512/429592/20261015080505311_Appendix%20-%20Final.pdf
5. Response in Opposition (Oct. 19, 2026): https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/26/26A512/429864/20261019093449212_2026-10-19%20-%20response%20in%20opposition%20to%20emergency%20application%20for%20a%20stay.pdf
6. New Hampshire HB 323, Chapter 20, Laws of 2026: https://gc.nh.gov/bill_status/legacy/bs2016/billText.aspx?id=413&sy=2026&txtFormat=html
7. RSA 659:13: https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/lxiii/659/659-13.htm
8. New Hampshire Secretary of State, Proof of Voter Registration Qualifications: https://www.sos.nh.gov/proof-voter-registration-qualifications
9. Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006); Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008).

General legal information, not legal advice. The October 22, 2026 order is a temporary stay, not a final ruling on the constitutionality of New Hampshire’s student ID restrictions. Confirm current voting instructions with your local election officials.

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, legal content researcher and founder of AllAboutLawyer.com. All facts verified against the U.S. Supreme Court’s October 22, 2026 order in Scanlan v. Coalition for Open Democracy (No. 26A512), the stay application and opposition on its docket, and HB 323 (Laws of 2026, ch. 20), as of October 23, 2026. Last Updated: October 23, 2026.