Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23a814_febh.pdf
Page Number: 4

4 

UNITED STATES v. TEXAS 

BARRETT, J., concurring 

that the consequences of erroneously enjoining the enforce-
ment  of  S. B.  4  would  be  worse  than  those  of  erroneously 
lifting the injunction.

“Minimizing  the  harm”  is  not  necessarily  the  exclusive
justification for an administrative stay.  Because an admin-
istrative stay precedes a ruling on a stay pending appeal, 
the Nken factors are obviously on the court’s radar, and un-
surprisingly, they can influence the stopgap decision, even
if  they  do  not  control  it.    Thus,  for  example,  judges  have
cited the underlying merits as a reason to grant an admin-
istrative  stay.  United  States  v.  Texas,  595  U. S.  ___,  ___ 
(2021) (SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring in part and dissenting 
in part); BST Holdings, L.L.C. v. OSHA, 2021 WL 5166656, 
*1 (CA5, Nov. 6, 2021) (per curiam); National Urban League 
v.  Ross,  977  F. 3d  698,  705  (CA9  2020)  (Bumatay,  J.,  dis-
senting) (“We should have granted an administrative stay
here because defendants are likely to succeed on the mer-
its”).  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 deci-
sion of a court of appeals to enter—or not enter—an admin-
istrative stay.  I would not get into the business.  When en-
tered, 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 liti-
gation  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.

The  real  problem—and  the  one  lurking  in  this  case—is
the risk that a court will avoid Nken for too long.  An ad-
ministrative  stay  should  last  no  longer  than  necessary  to