Per curiam opinion in Trump v. California, 26A124

… that any measure taken by the Government to implement the Order will necessarily be lawful. On that score, time will tell. But the Order itself does not harm the States, so the District Court lacked jurisdiction to bar the Govern- ment from trying to implement it. And for the reasons dis- cussed, that injunction is likely to irreparably harm the Government if it remains in place while the appellate pro- cess runs its course. Accordingly, the application for stay presented to JUSTICE JACKSON in No. 26A124 and by her referred to the Court is granted. The injunction entered by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in case No. 1:26–cv–11581 is stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certi- orari in this Court, if such a writ is timely sought. Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automati- cally. In the event certiorari is granted, the stay shall ter- …

Read the citing story

… likely to suffer irreparable harm without a stay. See Trump v. Cook, 609 U. S. ___, ___ (2026) (slip op., at 8). It must also demonstrate that the balance of equities does not coun- sel against relief. See ibid. Of these factors, the likelihood of success on the merits and the likelihood of irreparable harm “are the most critical.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U. S. 418, 434 (2009).1 II As to the first factor: The Government is likely to prevail on the merits of its argument that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to enter the judgment. Two related doctrines of justiciability block the States’ suit. One is standing, which requires “an injury that is con- crete, particularized, and imminent rather than ‘conjec- tural or hypothetical.’ ” Carney v. Adams, 592 U. S. 53, 60 (2020). The other is ripeness, which forbids federal courts to adjudicate disputes that are “dependent on ‘contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed …

Read the citing story

… the District Court rejected the Government’s argument that it lacked jurisdiction over the States’ claims because the States lack standing to bring them. The Government has asked us to stay the injunction, arguing that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its jurisdictional argument, that the injunction is causing it irreparable harm, and that the equities do not favor leaving the injunction in place while the Government’s appeal is pending. We agree and grant the stay. 2 TRUMP v. CALIFORNIA Per Curiam I About five months ago, President Trump issued an Exec- utive Order designed to maintain public confidence in fed- eral elections. See Exec. Order No. 14399, 91 Fed. Reg. 17125 (2026). The Order is an internal directive from the President to his subordinates mandating that certain agen- …

Read the citing story

… case No. 1:26–cv–11581 is stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certi- orari in this Court, if such a writ is timely sought. Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automati- cally. In the event certiorari is granted, the stay shall ter- minate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court. The application for stay presented to JUSTICE JACKSON in No. 26A139 and by her referred to the Court is denied as moot.  Cite as: 609 U. S. ____ (2026) 1 SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________ No. 26A124 _________________ DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL. v. CALIFORNIA, ET AL. ON APPLICATION FOR STAY _________________ …

Read the citing story

… will tell. But the Order itself does not harm the States, so the District Court lacked jurisdiction to bar the Govern- ment from trying to implement it. And for the reasons dis- cussed, that injunction is likely to irreparably harm the Government if it remains in place while the appellate pro- cess runs its course. Accordingly, the application for stay presented to JUSTICE JACKSON in No. 26A124 and by her referred to the Court is granted. The injunction entered by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in case No. 1:26–cv–11581 is stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certi- orari in this Court, if such a writ is timely sought. Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automati- cally. In the event certiorari is granted, the stay shall ter- minate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court. The application for stay presented to JUSTICE JACKSON in No. 26A139 and by her referred to the Court is denied as moot. …

Read the citing story