Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20a34_3f14.pdf
Page Number: 7

Cite as:  592 U. S. ____ (2021) 

5 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

the pandemic had gotten only worse since the summer.  Id., 
at *7.  The number of COVID–19 cases in the United States 
had  increased  four-fold,  the  number  of  deaths  had  more 
than doubled, and the pandemic was expected to intensify 
in  the  coming  winter  months.    Ibid.    The  District  Court 
therefore denied the motion. 
  The Government has now returned to this Court, asking 
again for a stay of the District Court’s injunction.  Although 
the COVID–19 pandemic has only worsened since October, 
the Court now grants the Government’s request.  
  A stay of a district court’s injunction is “ ‘ extraordinary’ ” 
relief.  See Williams v. Zbaraz, 442 U. S. 1309, 1311 (1979) 
(Stevens, J., in chambers).  “An applicant for a stay must 
meet a heavy burden of showing not only that the judgment 
of the lower court was erroneous on the merits, but also that 
the applicant will suffer irreparable injury if the judgment 
is not stayed pending his appeal.”  Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto 
Co.,  463  U. S.  1315,  1316  (1983)  (Blackmun,  J.,  in  cham-
bers)  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted);  see  also  Mary-
land v. King, 567 U. S. 1301, 1302 (2012) (ROBERTS, C. J., 
in  chambers).    The  District  Court  was correct to  conclude 
that the FDA’s unique regulation of mifepristone during the 
COVID–19 pandemic “plac[es] a substantial obstacle in the 
path of a woman seeking an abortion.” Planned Parenthood 
of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833, 877 (1992) (plu-
rality  opinion);  see  also  June  Medical  Services  L. L. C.  v. 
Russo, 591 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (plurality opinion) (slip op., 
at 1) (“ ‘ “[H]ealth regulations that have the purpose or effect 
of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an 
abortion” ’  . . .  are  .  .  .  ‘constitutionally  invalid’ ”  (quoting 
Whole  Woman’s  Health  v.  Hellerstedt,  579  U. S.  ___,  ___ 
(2016)  (slip  op.,  at  1));  June  Medical,  591  U. S.,  at  ___ 
(ROBERTS,  C. J.,  concurring  in  judgment)  (slip  op.,  at  11) 
(“In this case, Casey’s requirement of finding a substantial 
obstacle before invalidating an abortion regulation is . . . a