The U.S. Supreme Court has cleared the way for New Hampshire to restrict the use of student IDs as voter identification in the November midterm elections.
In an unsigned order issued Oct. 22, the justices paused a lower court ruling that had allowed election officials to consider student IDs as supporting evidence of a voter’s identity. The decision came less than two weeks before the midterm elections. The court invoked the “Purcell principle,” under which lower federal courts should ordinarily avoid changing election rules close to an election. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the only justice to publicly dissent.
The case stems from a New Hampshire law passed in April. House Bill 3223 removed student IDs from the list of documents explicitly accepted as valid photo identification for voting. The law took effect in June. Acceptable documents include driver’s licenses and U.S. passports, among others.
Supporters of the legislation argue that student IDs do not provide the same safeguards against fraud as government-issued documents. They say the restriction would strengthen identity verification and help maintain public confidence in elections.
READ: The midterms: America’s accountability election (July 22, 2026)
The Coalition for Open Democracy, a nonprofit involved in voter registration and civic participation, opposed the law and challenged it in federal court. The group argued that the restrictions were unconstitutional and would affect young voters. The lawsuit also alleged discrimination against young people.
In an October ruling, U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante declined to block the state law itself but restricted enforcement of a separate directive issued by New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan. Laplante ruled that officials could consider student IDs as supporting evidence under a separate provision allowing voters without an approved photo ID to establish their identity through other means.
The state appealed after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit rejected its request to suspend the ruling. Scanlan then asked the Supreme Court to intervene, arguing that his office had already updated polling-place posters and its website, conducted social media outreach, and produced and aired radio advertisements. He said the state would have to change its election guidance shortly before voting, potentially confusing voters.
READ: Crypto industry spends $189 million on US elections (June 30, 2026)
The Coalition for Open Democracy countered that the lower court had not changed the law but had prevented the secretary of state from interpreting it more broadly than the legislature intended.
Jackson said the lower court had issued a targeted order reasonably designed to address alleged misinformation, rather than change the law.
“When a federal court determines that material misrepresentations are being made about a state’s election rules, an injunction to prohibit that conduct does not contribute to public confusion, it prevents that very problem. I would not disturb a clearly justifiable federal-court order issued to ensure that the public receives accurate information about a State’s electoral processes,” Jackson wrote.
New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella welcomed the Supreme Court’s ruling, calling it an important victory for the state’s efforts to defend its laws and prevent last-minute court orders from creating uncertainty for voters and election officials.
The Supreme Court’s order is not a final ruling on the merits of the case, and the litigation is ongoing.