07-26-2019, 09:15 PM
SCOTUS has stayed the injunction preventing the Trump administration from reallocating $2.5b from the military to construct the wall.
In a 5-4 decision, the court weighed whether or not a stay could be granted. In order for that to happen you need to show:
First 2 are easy, it was the last one up for debate. Sierra Club said the injunction is needed to prevent irreparable harm to the environment while the administration argued irreparable harm to the project if they are not able to secure contracts prior to Sept 30th, which they say would effectively kill the project prior to a court ruling on it. Down party lines, the 5 conservatives sided with the administration's argument while the 4 liberals went with the Sierra Club's argument. The majority suggests that in the time between now and a final ruling on the merits of the case, the administration will only have achieved funding, not started the project, hence no irreparable harm to the environment.
The case will go to the appellate court this summer to further rule on the actual merits of the case, something the opinion notes is novel (though not the purview of the opinion so it stops there)
if you're into reading opinions, it's a short one:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/19a60_o75p.pdf
In a 5-4 decision, the court weighed whether or not a stay could be granted. In order for that to happen you need to show:
Quote: (1) a reasonable probability that the Court will grant certiorari 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.’”
First 2 are easy, it was the last one up for debate. Sierra Club said the injunction is needed to prevent irreparable harm to the environment while the administration argued irreparable harm to the project if they are not able to secure contracts prior to Sept 30th, which they say would effectively kill the project prior to a court ruling on it. Down party lines, the 5 conservatives sided with the administration's argument while the 4 liberals went with the Sierra Club's argument. The majority suggests that in the time between now and a final ruling on the merits of the case, the administration will only have achieved funding, not started the project, hence no irreparable harm to the environment.
The case will go to the appellate court this summer to further rule on the actual merits of the case, something the opinion notes is novel (though not the purview of the opinion so it stops there)
if you're into reading opinions, it's a short one:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/19a60_o75p.pdf
![[Image: ulVdgX6.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/ulVdgX6.jpg)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
