Law360 (April 10, 2020, 8:45 PM EDT) -- The U.S. Supreme Court has issued its first ruling dealing with COVID-19, refusing to postpone Wisconsin's election. On this week's episode of Pro Say, we're breaking down the decision, the blowback and how the court might rule on future coronavirus fights. 

Each week on Pro Say, Law360 staffers Amber McKinney, Bill Donahue and Alex Lawson bring you inside the newsroom and explain what you need to know about key legal developments.

Voters in Wisconsin braved the coronavirus pandemic on Tuesday to cast ballots in the presidential primary as well as a state Supreme Court election and a number of important local races. The voting took place after the U.S. Supreme Court put the brakes on a lower court's decision to allow Badger State residents to cast absentee ballots for six additional days after the election to account for any coronavirus-related disruptions. 

In a bitterly split 5-4 opinion on Monday evening, the high court's conservative majority concluded that the lower court's extension would fundamentally alter the nature of the election. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg penned a stinging dissent that said the majority's decision to strike the extension down on the eve of the election "boggles the mind" and could "result in massive disenfranchisement."

In other words, any hopes that the coronavirus outbreak would bridge ideological differences among the justices were swiftly dashed, Law360 Supreme Court Reporter Jimmy Hoover wrote this week, and this is only the first of several potentially polarizing COVID-19 cases to reach the high court. 

On this week's Pro Say, we talk about how the majority reached its conclusion and what it means going forward, plus we'll dive into the various insurance coverage, consumer class action and wrongful death litigation battles that are now brewing because of the coronavirus. 

We also welcome in Law360 Senior Immigration Reporter Suzanne Monyak as a guest to talk about the piecemeal approach immigration courts have taken to closing their facilities in light of the coronavirus, a choice that many attorneys and former judges have called chaotic, irresponsible and potentially negligent. 

Finally, we end with a New Jersey attorney who faces social-distancing criminal charges for allegedly holding an acoustic concert of Pink Floyd's greatest hits that drew about 30 people — and eventually local police — to his property.

More information about Pro Say and a full archive of previous episodes are available here. You can also subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Stitcher, Spotify or iHeartRadio, or just search "Law360" wherever you listen to podcasts. And if you like the show, please leave a written review! It helps others find us more easily.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.