Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 351.0

190 

HOLLINGSWORTH  v.  PERRY 

Per Curiam 

A 

To  obtain  a  stay  pending  the  ﬁling  and  disposition  of  a 
petition for a writ of certiorari, an applicant must show (1) a 
reasonable  probability  that  four  Justices  will  consider  the 
issue  sufﬁciently  meritorious  to  grant  certiorari;  (2)  a  fair 
prospect  that  a  majority  of  the  Court  will  vote  to  reverse 
the  judgment  below;  and  (3)  a  likelihood  that  irreparable 
harm  will  result  from  the  denial  of  a  stay.  In  close  cases 
the Circuit Justice or the Court will balance the equities and 
weigh the relative harms to the applicant and to the respond­
ent.  Lucas  v.  Townsend,  486  U. S.  1301,  1304  (1988)  (Ken­
nedy,  J.,  in  chambers);  Rostker  v.  Goldberg,  448  U. S.  1306, 
1308  (1980)  (Brennan,  J.,  in  chambers).  To  obtain  a  stay 
pending  the  ﬁling  and  disposition  of  a  petition  for  a  writ  of 
mandamus,  an  applicant  must  show  a  fair  prospect  that  a 
majority  of  the  Court  will  vote  to  grant  mandamus  and  a 
likelihood  that  irreparable  harm  will  result  from  the  denial 
of  a  stay.  Before  a  writ  of  mandamus  may  issue,  a  party 
must  establish  that  (1)  “no  other  adequate  means  [exist]  to 
attain the relief he desires,” (2) the party’s “right to issuance 
of  the  writ  is  ‘clear  and  indisputable,’ ”  and  (3)  “the  writ  is 
appropriate  under  the  circumstances.”  Cheney  v.  United 
States  Dist.  Court  for  D.  C.,  542  U. S.  367,  380–381  (2004) 
(some  internal  quotation  marks  omitted).  This  Court  will 
issue  the  writ  of  mandamus  directly  to  a  federal  district 
court  “only  where  a  question  of  public  importance  is  in­
volved,  or  where  the  question  is  of  such  a  nature  that  it  is 
peculiarly  appropriate  that  such  action  by  this  court  should 
be  taken.”  Ex  parte  United  States,  287  U. S.  241,  248–249 
(1932).  These  familiar  standards  are  followed  here,  where 
applicants claim that the District Court’s order was based on 
a local Rule adopted in violation of federal law. 

Given  the  importance  of  the  issues  at  stake,  and  our  con­
clusion that the District Court likely violated a federal stat­

B