\
  The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
BackRefresh Options Favorite

SCOTUS bitch-slaps judge who ordered re-hiring of fed workers

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25888805/24a904-order...
mint internal respiration wrinkle
  04/08/25
All courts have an “independent obligation to det...
honey-headed incel
  04/08/25
Boasberg, fuming
mint internal respiration wrinkle
  04/08/25
Trump is starting to rack up some wins on appeal.
mint internal respiration wrinkle
  04/08/25


Poast new message in this thread



Reply Favorite

Date: April 8th, 2025 3:07 PM
Author: mint internal respiration wrinkle

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25888805/24a904-order.pdf

ORDER IN PENDING CASE

24A904 OPM, ET AL. V. AFGE, ET AL.

The application 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-cv1780, 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

2

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.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5707478&forum_id=2:#48827940)



Reply Favorite

Date: April 8th, 2025 3:17 PM
Author: honey-headed incel

All courts have an “independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party.” Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) (citing Ruhgras AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999)).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5707478&forum_id=2:#48827993)



Reply Favorite

Date: April 8th, 2025 3:23 PM
Author: mint internal respiration wrinkle

Boasberg, fuming

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5707478&forum_id=2:#48828022)



Reply Favorite

Date: April 8th, 2025 5:45 PM
Author: mint internal respiration wrinkle

Trump is starting to rack up some wins on appeal.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5707478&forum_id=2:#48828624)