Docket for 24A904
|
| Mar 24 2025 | Application (24A904) for a stay, submitted to Justice Kagan. | | Main DocumentProof of Service | | Mar 27 2025 | Letter of applicant United States Office of Personnel Management, et al. filed. | | Main Document | | Mar 27 2025 | Response to application (24A904) requested by Justice Kagan, due by 12 p.m. (EDT) on April 3, 2025. | | | | Mar 27 2025 | Amicus brief of APA Watch submitted. | | Main Document | | Apr 03 2025 | Response to application from respondents American Federation of Government Employees, et al. filed. | | Main DocumentMain DocumentProof of Service | | Apr 03 2025 | Amicus brief of County of Santa Clara, Calif. submitted. | | Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service | | Apr 03 2025 | Amicus brief of Former Government Officials Donald Ayer, Ty Cobb, Mickey Edwards, John Farmer Jr., Peter Keisler, et al. submitted. | | Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service | | Apr 04 2025 | Reply of United States Office of Personnel Management, et al. in support of application submitted. | | ReplyProof of Service | | Apr 08 2025 | Application (24A904) referred to the Court. | | | | Apr 08 2025 | Application (24A904) for stay presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court is granted. The March 13, 2025 preliminary injunction entered by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, case No. 3:25-cv-1780, 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 solely on the allegations of the nine non-profit-organization plaintiffs in this case. But under established law, those allegations are presently insufficient to support the organizations’ standing. See, e.g., Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U. S. 398 (2013). This order does not address the claims of the other plaintiffs, which did not form the basis of the District Court’s preliminary injunction.
Justice Sotomayor would deny the application.
Justice Jackson would have declined to reach the standing question in the context of an application for emergency relief where the issue is pending in the lower courts and the applicants have not demonstrated urgency in the form of interim irreparable harm. See Department of Education v. California, 604 U. S. ___, ___ (2025) (Jackson, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 1–2). Thus, she would have denied the application. | | |
|