Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 943

524us2IC1H 02-10-99 11:41:56 PAGES IC13BXPGT n

1302

RUBIN v. UNITED STATES

Opinion in Chambers

of privilege is eventually upheld, disclosure of past events
will not affect the President’s relationship with his protec-
tors in the future. On balance, the equities do not favor
granting a stay.

An applicant for stay must also show that there is a likeli-
hood that four Members of this Court will grant certiorari
to review the decision of the Court of Appeals on the merits.
This case is obviously not a run-of-the-mine dispute, pitting
as it does the prosecution’s need for testimony before a grand
jury against claims involving the safety and protection of
the President of the United States.
I shall assume, without
deciding, that four Members of this Court on that basis
would grant certiorari.

But a stay applicant must also show that there is a likeli-
hood that this Court, having granted certiorari and heard
the case, would reverse the judgment of the Court of Ap-
peals. The applicant simply has not made that showing to
my satisfaction, and I believe my view would be shared by a
majority of my colleagues. The opinion of the Court of Ap-
peals seems to me cogent and correct. The District Court
which considered the matter was also of that view, and none
of the nine judges of the Court of Appeals even requested a
vote on the applicant’s suggestion for rehearing en banc.

The application for stay is accordingly denied.