By Marilyn Odendahl
The Indiana Citizen
April 21, 2026
Saying voting rules cannot be altered this close to the election date, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stayed a district court’s preliminary injunction issued last week, so, once again, students at Indiana’s public universities can no longer use their school ID at the polls.
The per curiam emergency ruling was issued Monday in the dispute over Senate Enrolled Act 10, which prohibits students at the state’s public universities from using their college IDs as proof of identification when voting. After the Southern Indiana District Court imposed the preliminary injunction on April 14, finding the state statute violated the First and 14th Amendments, the state, represented by Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita’s office, filed an emergency appeal on April 16 with the 7th Circuit.
In the four-page opinion for Count US IN, et al. v. Diego Morales, et al., the federal appellate court did not address the constitutional issues or determine whether SEA 10 created a heavier burden on students than on all other voters. Instead, the panel of three judges focused on the calendar and cited to the U.S. Supreme Court’s admonition that “lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election.”
Indiana’s primary is May 5 and early voting in the state began on April 7.
“We view the risk of disruption to Indiana’s primary election as very serious,” the 7th Circuit panel said. “In no uncertain terms, the district court’s injunction will alter who can cast a ballot in this election. And this change – imposed unilaterally by a federal court – comes seven days after voting in the election has already begun.”
The panel included Chief Judge Michael Brennan and Circuit Judge Michael Scudder, both nominated by President Donald Trump in his first term, and Circuit Judge Joshua Kolar, nominated by President Joe Biden.
Count US IN and Women4Change Indiana, the plaintiffs who challenged SEA 10 in federal court, issued statements Monday asserting they are not ending their fight to overturn this law.
Sara Fichtner, interim executive director at Women4Change Indiana, said SEA 10 moved the Hoosier State in the wrong direction by creating an “unnecessary and arbitrary obstacle for tens of thousands of young voters.”
“We are all counting on Indiana’s students and young voters to be informed citizens and future leaders in our community — we should welcome their participation in elections, not treat them with skepticism and burden them with extra rules,” Fichtner said in her statement. “We are proud to be a part of this case. We will continue working to ensure that civic participation in our state is encouraged, not undermined.”
The case will likely return to the district court, where the litigation will continue.
Rokita hailed the appellate ruling on X, calling it a “BIG WIN for Election Integrity in Indiana!”
“This commonsense protection is needed to close loopholes, prevent potential fraud by out-of-state or ineligible voters, ensure every ballot belongs to a verified Hoosier, and preserve public confidence in fair, honest, and transparent elections,” Rokita said on his social media post. “We will never back down from safeguarding the security of our elections and the sacred right of eligible voters.”
In its emergency motion and reply brief filed with the 7th Circuit, the state does not identify one incident of an individual voting fraudulently in an Indiana election with a student ID. Rather, it claims SEA 10 will improve public confidence and election integrity. “Expert evidence,” the state said, “demonstrates that stricter identification requirements correlate with reduced public perceptions of fraud prevalence.”
U.S. District Court Judge Richard Young highlighted in his April 14 ruling granting the preliminary injunction the steps universities around the state have taken to update their student IDs, so the cards conform to state voter ID requirements. The schools have contacted state officials and made changes to their identification cards to comply with state law, he said in his ruling.
Also, Young noted, as state-supported schools work to meet the voter ID law, “hundreds of thousands of students” at Indiana public universities used their university-issued cards to vote for nearly 20 years. Consequently, he concluded in his ruling that requiring the “revival of previous practices” regarding student IDs while the election was underway would not be disruptive.
“The requested relief only requires the Defendants to accept student IDs as a form of voter identification – something Indiana has already done for nearly two decades,” Young wrote.
Before the 7th Circuit, the state argued that lifting the ban now “is guaranteed to sow chaos, confusion, and disruption.” It asserted that allowing student IDs would require poll workers to be retrained and training materials to be revised while “voter confusion and public confidence” in the election would be at risk.
The nonprofits countered in their response brief that the appellate court had no basis “to second-guess the district court’s fact-bound determination” that accepting university-issued identification cards again would be easy to implement. They contended the prior practice was easily revived the day after the injunction was issued because the Indiana Election Division had instructed all county clerks that qualifying student IDs “may be used for voting in the upcoming elections, including the May 5, 2026, primary election.”
However, the 7th Circuit’s ruling cited to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2006 ruling in Purcell v. Gonzalez, which established the precedent against making changes to election rules on the eve of an election. The appellate panel said the so-called Purcell Principle recognizes that “(late) judicial tinkering with election laws can lead to disruption and unanticipated and unfair consequences.”
Indiana Secretary of State Diego Morales applauded on X the attorney general’s success in getting the ban on student IDs restored. “Only eligible Hoosiers should be voting in Indiana elections,” Morales wrote.
Fichtner at Women4Change and Jalyn Radziminski-Hooks, executive and lead policy director of Count US IN, seemed to concede that nothing could be done to reverse the 7th Circuit’s decision before the May 5 primary, so students cannot use their school IDs when voting. Yet, Fichtner and Radziminski-Hooks pointed out the case is continuing and, in its preliminary injunction, the district court found SEA 10 is likely unconstitutional.
“Despite this temporary setback, we remain firmly committed to this case and will keep fighting to permanently block (SEA 10) and ensure every Hoosier has a fair opportunity to make their voice heard at the ballot box,” Radziminski-Hooks said in a statement.
As the case returns to the district court, the state may make the argument that any ruling about student IDs would apply only to Monroe County, the only county named as a defendant in the lawsuit.
The state was trying to limit the scope of the preliminary injunction at the 7th Circuit. Pointing to the 2025 ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court in Trump v. CASA, Inc., which limited some of the universal injunctions issued by federal courts, the state asserted the district court’s order could not be applied to all 92 Indiana counties.
In its reply brief, the state said the injunction prohibited the named defendants from enforcing the student ID ban, but election officials in Indiana’s other 91 counties could decide for themselves whether to comply with SEA 10’s requirements.
The nonprofits countered in their response brief that the injunction must cover the entire state, because both Count US IN and Women4Change “register voters, educate students about voting, and provide election-day assistance” across Indiana. SEA 10’s prohibition will harm the two organizations by forcing them to spend more time and resources on educating students, helping them get a qualifying ID, and retraining its volunteers to help voters on Election Day.
To bolster its argument, nonprofits highlighted the 7th Circuit’s 2025 ruling in Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press v. Todd Rokita, which upheld the preliminary injunction against House Enrolled Act 1186. Signed by former Gov. Eric Holcomb in 2023, the law provided that anyone who gets within 25 feet of a law enforcement officer in certain situations commits a Class C misdemeanor.
“As this Court has recognized, ‘an injunction requiring the defendant to cease the offending activity entirely may be the only way to provide complete relief to the plaintiff,’” the nonprofits said in their response brief, referring to the Rokita decision. “That is the case here. The only way to remedy the harm to Plaintiffs is to enjoin the Ban entirely.”
Dwight Adams, an editor and writer based in Indianapolis, edited this article. He is a former content editor, copy editor and digital producer at The Indianapolis Star and IndyStar.com, and worked as a planner for other newspapers, including the Louisville Courier Journal.
The Indiana Citizen is a nonpartisan, nonprofit platform dedicated to increasing the number of informed and engaged Hoosier citizens. We are operated by the Indiana Citizen Education Foundation, Inc., a 501(c)(3) public charity. For questions about the story, contact Marilyn Odendahl at marilyn.odendahl@indianacitizen.org
