Docket for 24A1174
|
| Jun 02 2025 | Application (24A1174) for a stay, submitted to Justice Kagan. | | Main DocumentProof of Service | | Jun 02 2025 | Response to application (24A1174) requested by Justice Kagan, due by 12 p.m. (EDT), on June 9, 2025. | | | | Jun 06 2025 | Brief amici curiae of Former Government Officials and Advisors filed. | | Main DocumentProof of Service | | Jun 06 2025 | Brief amicus curiae of Constitutional Accountability Center filed. | | Main DocumentProof of Service | | Jun 09 2025 | Response to application from respondents American Federation of Government Employees, et al. filed. | | Main DocumentMain DocumentProof of Service | | Jun 09 2025 | Brief amici curiae of America's Future, et al. filed. | | Main DocumentProof of Service | | Jun 10 2025 | Reply of applicants Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. filed. | | ReplyProof of Service | | Jul 08 2025 | Application (24A1174) referred to the Court. | | | | Jul 08 2025 | Application (24A1174) for stay presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court is granted. The May 22, 2025 preliminary injunction entered by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, case No. 3:25–cv–3698, is stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such a writ is timely sought. Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court.
The District Court’s injunction was based on its view that Executive Order No. 14210, 90 Fed. Reg. 9669 (2025), and a joint memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget and Office of Personnel Management implementing that Executive Order are unlawful. Because the Government is likely to succeed on its argument that the Executive Order and Memorandum are lawful—and because the other factors bearing on whether to grant a stay are satisfied— we grant the application. We express no view on the legality of any Agency RIF and Reorganization Plan produced or approved pursuant to the Executive Order and Memorandum. The District Court enjoined further implementation or approval of the plans based on its view about the illegality of the Executive Order and Memorandum, not on any assessment of the plans themselves. Those plans are not before this Court.
Justice Sotomayor concurs. (Detached Opinion)
Justice Jackson dissents. (Detached Opinion) | | |
|