In the 2008 case of Jennifer Brunner, Ohio Secretary of State v. Ohio Republican Party et al., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Brunner, overturning a lower court's order that had required her to update voter registration databases before the upcoming election. The Ohio Republican Party had sued Brunner, alleging discrepancies between voter registration information and motor vehicle or Social Security records could lead to fraudulent voting. They cited Section 303(a) of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), which requires states to verify new voter registrations by matching information with existing state databases such as driver’s license records or social security numbers. However, in an unsigned opinion known as a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court held that private parties like political groups do not have standing under HAVA to sue over alleged noncompliance with federal law; only federal authorities can enforce it.

In the dissenting opinion of the case Jennifer Brunner, Ohio Secretary of State v. Ohio Republican Party et al., Justice Scalia argued that the Court should have granted a stay to prevent potential voter fraud. He contended that there was a reasonable probability that non-compliance with federal election law could lead to irreparable harm by enabling fraudulent voting. The majority's decision not to intervene, according to him, risked undermining public confidence in elections if it turned out after-the-fact that noncompliant votes had been counted and could not be remedied later on. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view about jurisdictional issues; he believed they were wrong in concluding that private parties cannot sue under Section 8 of NVRA (National Voter Registration Act). In his view, this misinterpretation would leave states free from any consequences for failing to comply with federal laws regarding maintenance of accurate and current voter registration lists.