Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-592_5hd5.pdf
Page Number: 4

4 

ARIZONA v. MAYORKAS 

Statement of GORSUCH, J. 

not a COVID crisis.”10  And the Court took a serious misstep
when it effectively allowed nonparties to this case to manip-
ulate our docket to prolong an emergency decree designed 
for one crisis in order to address an entirely different one.11 
Today’s dismissal goes some way to correcting that error.

I lay out the history of this case only because it is so typ-
ical.  Not just as an illustration of the quandaries that can
follow when district courts award nationwide relief, a prob-
lem I have written about before.12  Even more importantly,
the history of this case illustrates the disruption we have
experienced over the last three years in how our laws are
made and our freedoms observed. 

Since March 2020, we may have experienced the greatest
intrusions on civil liberties in the peacetime history of this 
country.  Executive officials across the country issued emer-
gency decrees on a breathtaking scale.  Governors and local 
leaders imposed lockdown orders forcing people to remain
in  their  homes.13    They  shuttered  businesses and  schools, 

—————— 

10 Arizona, 598 U. S., at ___ (GORSUCH, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 3). 
11 Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 2–3). 
12 Department  of  Homeland  Security  v.  New  York,  589  U. S.  ___,  ___ 

(2020) (opinion concurring in grant of stay) (slip op., at 3). 

13 See,  e.g.,  Republican  National  Committee  v.  Democratic  National 
Committee, 589 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting) (slip op., 
at 2) (noting that the Governor of Wisconsin ordered residents “to stay 
at home . . . to slow the spread of the disease”); see generally The Council
of  State  Governments,  COVID–19  Resources  for  State  Leaders:  2020– 
2021  Executive  Orders,  https://web.csg.org/covid19/executive-orders/
(COVID–19 Resources for State Leaders) (cataloging such orders issued
throughout the country).