Trump v. Sierra Club Best Lawyers in Chandigarh

Cite as: 588 U. S. ____ (2019) 1 Opinion of BREYER, J. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________ No. 19A60 _________________ DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL. v. SIERRA CLUB, ET AL. ON APPLICATION FOR STAY [July 26, 2019] The application for stay presented to JUSTICE KAGAN and by her referred to the Court is granted. Among the reasons is that the Government has made a sufficient showing at this stage that the plaintiffs have no cause of action to ob- tain review of the Acting Secretary’s compliance with Sec- tion 8005. The District Court’s June 28, 2019 order granting a permanent injunction is stayed pending disposition of the Government’s appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and disposition of the Government’s petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event the peti- tion for a writ of certiorari is granted, the stay shall termi- nate when the Court enters its judgment. JUSTICE GINSBURG, JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, and JUSTICE KAGAN would deny the application. JUSTICE BREYER, concurring in part and dissenting in part from grant of stay. To warrant this stay, the Government must show not just (1) a reasonable probability that the Court will grant certi- orari and (2) a fair prospect that the Court will reverse, but also (3) “ ‘a likelihood that irreparable harm will result from the denial of a stay.’ ” Maryland v. King, 567 U. S. 1301, 1302 (2012) (ROBERTS, C. J., in chambers). This case raises novel and important questions about the ability of private 2 TRUMP v. SIERRA CLUB Opinion of BREYER, J. parties to enforce Congress’ appropriations power. I would express no other view now on the merits of those questions. Before granting a stay, however, we must still assess the competing claims of harm and balance the equities. Barnes v. E-Systems, Inc. Group Hospital Medical & Surgical Ins. Plan, 501 U. S. 1301, 1305 (1991) (Scalia, J., in chambers). This Court may, and sometimes does, “tailor a stay so that it operates with respect to only ‘some portion of the proceed- ing.’ ” Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project, 582 U. S. ___, ___ (2017) (per curiam) (slip op., at 10) (quot- ing Nken v. Holder, 556 U. S. 418, 428 (2009)). In my view, this is an appropriate case to do so. If we grant the stay, the Government may begin construc- tion of a border barrier that would cause irreparable harm to the environment and to respondents, according to both respondents and the District Court. The Government’s only response to this claim of irreparable harm is that, if re- spondents ultimately prevail, the border barrier may be taken down (with what funding, the Government does not say). But this is little comfort because it is not just the bar- rier, but the construction itself (and presumably its later ...

Original document

Best Lawyers in Chandigarh High Court