Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20a62_n7ip.pdf
Page Number: 4.0

4 

ROSS v. NATIONAL URBAN LEAGUE 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

entire injunction. 
  I would deny a stay of that injunction.  An applicant for a 
stay “must demonstrate (1) ‘a reasonable probability’ that 
this Court will grant certiorari, (2) ‘a fair prospect’ that the 
Court will then reverse the decision below, and (3) ‘a likeli-
hood that irreparable harm [will] result from the denial of 
a  stay.’ ”    Maryland  v.  King,  567  U. S.  1301  (2012) 
(ROBERTS, C. J., in chambers) (quoting Conkright v. From-
mert,  556  U. S.  1401,  1402  (2009)  (Ginsburg,  J.,  in  cham-
bers)).    The Government  fails  to demonstrate  that  the in-
junction is likely to cause it irreparable harm.  Regardless 
of the merits of respondents’ claims, this failure, alone, re-
quires denying the requested stay. 
  The Government  articulates  a single  harm: that  if  data 
collection  continues  through  October  31,  the  Bureau  will 
not meet the December 31 statutory deadline to report cen-
sus results to the President.  But it is unlikely the District 
Court’s injunction will be the cause of the Bureau’s inability 
to do so.  Indeed, for months, senior Bureau officials have 
represented  that,  whatever  the  data  collection  deadline, 
meeting the December 31 reporting deadline would be im-
possible.  See ___ F. 3d ___, ___, 2020 WL 5940346, *6 (CA9, 
Oct.  7,  2020)  (“[T]he  President,  Department  of  Commerce 
officials, Bureau officials, and outside analysis from the Of-
fice of the Inspector General, the Census Scientific Advisory 
Committee,  and  the  Government  Accountability  Office  all 
stated unequivocally, some before and some after the adop-
tion of the Replan, that the Bureau would be unable to meet 
[the  December  31]  deadline  under  any  conditions”).   Only 
recently  have  officials  begun  to  claim  that  the  Bureau 
might yet be able to meet the statutory deadline, and even 
then, their story keeps changing.  See ibid. (noting that the 
Government’s representation that it could meet the statu-
tory deadline if it ended collection by October 5 was at odds 
with the September 22 declaration of a senior Bureau offi-
cial).  It is in fact far from clear why the Government now