Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23a814_febh.pdf
Page Number: 12

Cite as:  601 U. S. ____ (2023) 

7 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

management of its own docket.  Yet an administrative stay 
that not only upends the status quo but also extends that 
disruption  indefinitely  defeats  the  purpose  of  this  Court’s
stay analysis and threatens to evade effective review of this
unprecedented law.  Cf. 16 C. Wright, A Miller, & E. Cooper, 
Federal Practice and Procedure §3922.1 (3d ed. 2023) (tem-
porary restraining orders that extend for too long are “apt
to be held appealable as a preliminary injunction”).  In my
view, even a single day of the status quo disruption likely 
to be caused by S. B. 4 based on an unreasoned order is one
day too many.  Whether the Fifth Circuit calls this an ad-
ministrative stay or something else, it has all the hallmarks 
of a stay pending appeal.  To grant a stay pending appeal, 
however, a court must apply the relevant factors. 

Applying those factors, the District Court concluded that
the applicants are likely to succeed on the merits of their 
claims because federal law pre-empts S. B. 4.  Control of the 
Nation’s  borders,  including  the  entry  and  exit  of  nonciti-
zens,  has  long  been  the  exclusive  province  of  the  Federal 
Government.  See supra, at 2–3; see also Chy Lung v. Free-
man, 92 U. S. 275, 280 (1876) (“The passage of laws which 
concern the admission of citizens and subjects of foreign na-
tions  to  our  shores  belongs  to  Congress,  and  not  to  the
States”).  Because S. B. 4 appears to intrude on the exclu-
sive  federal  authority  to  regulate  entry  and  removal  of 
noncitizens and does so in a way that conflicts with multiple
provisions of federal law, the District Court concluded that
S. B. 4 was likely unconstitutional.  The District Court also 
found that S. B. 4 would cause irreparable harm if it went 
into effect.  See infra, at 8–9.  Texas identifies its harm as 
the failure of the Executive Branch to enforce immigration 
law, undoubtedly an issue on which there is ongoing politi-
cal  debate.  Yet  this  Court  has  recently  emphasized  that 
“the Executive Branch also retains discretion over whether 
to  remove  a  noncitizen  from  the  United  States,”  despite
claims of harm to a State.  United States v. Texas, 599 U. S.