Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/21a23_ap6c.pdf
Page Number: 9

Cite as:  594 U. S. ____ (2021) 

1 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 21A23 
_________________ 

ALABAMA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, ET AL. v. 
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND  
HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL. 

ON APPLICATION TO VACATE STAY 

[August 26, 2021]

 JUSTICE  BREYER,  with  whom  JUSTICE  SOTOMAYOR  and 

JUSTICE KAGAN join, dissenting. 

The  Centers  for  Disease  Control  and  Prevention  (CDC)
has issued an order that, in light of the rise of the COVID–
19 Delta variant, temporarily prohibits certain evictions in 
high-transmission counties through October 3.  Today, this
Court, as an emergency matter, without full briefing or ar-
gument, blocks that order by vacating a lower court’s stay.
I think the Court is wrong to do so, and I dissent. 

“We may not vacate a stay entered by a [lower] court . . . 
unless that court clearly and ‘demonstrably’ erred in its ap-
plication of ‘accepted standards.’ ”  Planned Parenthood of 
Greater  Tex.  Surgical  Health  Servs.  v.  Abbott,  571  U. S. 
1061 (2013) (Scalia, J., concurring in denial of application
to vacate stay) (quoting Western Airlines, Inc. v. Teamsters, 
480  U. S.  1301,  1305  (1987)  (O’Connor,  J.,  in  chambers)).
Those accepted factors are “(1) whether the stay applicant
has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on 
the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably in-
jured  absent  a  stay;  (3)  whether  issuance  of  the  stay  will
substantially injure the other parties interested in the pro-
ceeding;  and  (4)  where  the  public  interest  lies.”    Nken  v. 
Holder, 556 U. S. 418, 426 (2009) (internal quotation marks
omitted).  In my view, the courts below did not clearly err
for three reasons.