This seems pretty complicated. The argument the Supreme Court seems to be making is that because the 5th Circuit court’s order was an “administrative stay” rather than a “stay pending appeal”, the judgment of the court shouldn’t be questioned, since an administrative stay is supposed to be a very temporary thing not normally subject to legal tests and requirements because the point is to be a tool for court procedure and they don’t want to mess with that:
But such orders rarely generate opinions, which means that there is no jurisprudence of administrative stays, much less a one-size-fits-all test that courts apply be- fore entering one. That does not strike me as a problem: Play in the joints seems appropriate for a measure that functions as a flexible, short-term tool.
So far as I know, this Court has never reviewed the decision of a court of appeals to enter—or not enter—an administrative stay. I would not get into the business. When entered, an administrative stay is supposed to be a short-lived prelude to the main event: a ruling on the motion for a stay pending appeal. I think it unwise to invite emergency litigation in this Court about whether a court of appeals abused its discretion at this preliminary step—for example, by misjudging whether an administrative stay is the best way to minimize harm while the court deliberates.
From what the article is saying, it sounds like the law is currently blocked again because the 5th Circuit changed their mind or something?
The 5th Circuit panel, in a 2-1 vote, lifted the administrative stay ahead of arguments on whether to once again put on hold the lower-court injunction while Texas pursues an appeal.
I think that behind the scenes, somebody told the 5th to shit or get off the pot, and that SCOTUS just went out on a limb for them to preserve circuit court autonomy, which per Kagan’s dissent, they are currently abusing. The Appeals court was pretty clearly slow playing this in a partisan manner.
I think it’s important that we remember that at SCOTUS, even most of the conservative Justices (seriously… fuck Clarence Thomas, even apart from RV corruption, he’s been a joke of a jurist for decades) still want to believe they’re on the right side of precedent and history, so we can often suss out their reasoning, even if it’s deeply flawed and disturbing.
This is basically saying that states supersede the federal government on border policy, which is patently absurd. You either believe in the rule of law or you don’t. You don’t get to have it both ways. The conversation justices in this case are complete buffoons.
Tell me you have no fucking clue about the contents of the constitution or the concept of rule of law without telling me you have no fucking clue about the contents of the constitution or the concept of rule of law.