Earlier this week, the former Biden’s White House counsel, Dana Remus, told reporters during a taped call that the volume of litigation filed by Republicans should not be seen as confirmation of the validity of their claims. More like 2020, when Donald Trump and allied candidates, campaigns and organizations lost over 60 lawsuitstold listeners that she remains confident in our courts.

It would be easy to be cynical about the federal judiciary at this point. After all, the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling last July — which could decimate Trump’s federal election meddling case even if he loses — has even left some of those more ardent defenders of the court. But Remus’s first justification the prediction came last night – and from an unlikely source.

He is now a federal district court judge Sarah Pitlyk, serving in St. Louis, was one of the most controversial nominees of the Trump presidency. A former clerk for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, she faced significant opposition as the nominee for two main reasons. First, the American Bar Association gave her an “unqualified” rating because of her lack of trial or actual litigation experience. Second, she was, like The Washington Post noted when she was confirmed, she was “challenged by reproductive rights advocates” not only for her dislike of abortion rights, but also for her “vigorous opposition” to both surrogacy and IVF.

But last night, faced with a motion for emergency relief from Republican Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, Judge Pitlyk was on the side of his opponent: US Attorney General Merrick Garland. Specifically, Missouri sought to prevent federal poll monitors from entering its polling places, arguing that their presence would violate Missouri election law. After ordering a prompt response from the Justice Department, Pitlyk quickly denied the restraining order Bailey sought.

Why? Because the poll watchers were specifically agreed to as part of an ongoing agreement between the city of St. Louis and the Department of Justice to address barriers to voting for the city’s disabled residents and ensure they have fair and full access to the polls.

In her brief, Pitlyk reasoned that “[t]he harms to persons with disabilities that led to the Settlement Agreement and the presence of federal observers are documented and undisputed, while the harms that the State of Missouri anticipates are speculative—a flaw emphasized.” in that similar observers were 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 nonspeculative threat to the integrity of the election,” should prevail.

Will other Trump-appointed conservative justices stick around and uphold the law? Stay tuned.