Trump appointee in Missouri closes GOP challenge to DOJ poll watchers

Earlier this week, former Biden White House lawyer Dana Remus told reporters on an official call that the volume of lawsuits filed by Republicans should not be seen as confirmation of the validity of their claims. Rather like in 2020, when Donald Trump and associated candidates, campaigns and organizations lost more than 60 lawsuitsshe told listeners that she remains confident in our courts.

It would be easy to be cynical about the federal judiciary at this point. The Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision last July — which could lead to the decimation of Trump’s federal election interference case even if he loses the election — left even some of the court’s most ardent defenders speechless. But the first justification of Remus’ prediction came last night – and from an unlikely source.

Now a federal district court judge Sarah Pitlyk, who serves in St. Louis, was one of Trump’s more controversial presidential nominees. As a former law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, she faced significant opposition as a nominee for two main reasons. First, the American Bar Association gave her a “not qualified” rating due to her lack of trial experience or actual trial experience. Secondly, she was, like The Washington Post noted this when she was confirmed, she was “besieged by reproductive rights advocates” not only for her antipathy to abortion rights, but also for her “strong opposition” to both surrogacy and IVF.

But last night, Judge Pitlyk was faced with a motion for emergency relief from Republican Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey sided with his opponent: US Attorney General Merrick Garland. In particular, Missouri sought to prevent federal poll workers from entering polling places, arguing that their presence would violate Missouri election law. After ordering a swift response from the Justice Department, Pitlyk quickly denied the temporary restraining order Bailey requested.

Why? Because the poll workers specifically agreed, as part of a pending settlement between the City of St. Louis and the Department of Justice, to remove barriers to voting for disabled city residents and ensure that they have fair and full access to polling places to have.

In her brief order, Pitlyk reasoned that “the harm to persons with disabilities that led to the settlement agreement and the presence of federal monitors is documented and undisputed, while the harm anticipated by the State of Missouri is speculative – a flaw underscored by the fact that similar observers have been present at least twice and their presence apparently went unnoticed.” Ultimately, she ruled that the federal interest in enforcing the Americans with Disabilities Act, “absent any non-speculative threat to election integrity,” should prevail.

Will other Trump-nominated conservative judges toe the line and uphold the law? Stay informed.