The sun is setting shortly and I'm on the go, so my comments about the Missouri order will be brief.

First, the Court only addressed standing in a footnote. I am still not convinced any of the parties had standing but at least 5 members of the Court disagreed, including the Court's leading proceduralist.

Second, the per curiam noted that Justice Kavanaugh's prior orders had no noted dissents. I am still not convinced all three of these orders were unanimous. It may be that Justices Thomas and Alito did not think it was worth alienating Justice Kavanaugh.

Third, the point about this ruling not being a surprise was gratuitous. There were two summary ruling with no explanation. The prior case had serious AISG issues. The federal case did not. Apparently the prior cases were entirely about Purcell. Good to know.

Fourth, the Court says the merits here are unclear. I think this concession was the price of unanimity.

Fifth, this is an ironclad Purcell ruling that will be cited by the conservatives for years to come. The conservatives may see value in having this ruling as unanimous.

I was very wrong about the lighting docket here. I think the Justices felt they had to smack down the 8th circuit here.