Today, the Supreme Court issued an order on the emergency docket in United States v. Texas, now known as Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center v. McCraw. This case involved a challenge brought by the federal government against Texas Senate Bill 4 (S.B. 4). The District Court had previously entered a preliminary injunction to block the enforcement of the law.
After a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit issued a temporary administrative stay on March 2, the Supreme Court set an expedited schedule for the case in April. The Solicitor General then sought to vacate the stay of the preliminary injunction, prompting Circuit Justice Alito to extend the stay several times.
In a surprising turn of events, the Supreme Court denied the application to stay the Fifth Circuit’s temporary administrative stay. This meant that S.B. 4 could now be enforced as the stay was dissolved. While the Court did not provide a reasoning for its decision, Justice Barrett wrote a lengthy concurrence, joined by Justice Kavanaugh.
Barrett’s concurrence in Las Americas v. McCraw delves into various aspects of administrative stays and their implications. She discusses the lack of clarity on the definition of the status quo and the principles that guide the issuance of administrative stays. Barrett also raises concerns about the prolonged nature of administrative stays and the potential impact on the main legal proceedings.
Overall, Justice Barrett’s concurrence highlights the complexities surrounding emergency stays and raises important questions about their application. It serves as a reminder of the critical role of Supreme Court justices in shaping the outcomes of cases on the emergency docket.