Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22a901_3d9g.pdf
Page Number: 2.0

2 

DANCO LABORATORIES, LLC v. ALLIANCE FOR 
HIPPOCRATIC MEDICINE 
ALITO, J., dissenting 

op., at 2).  In another, we were criticized for ruling on a stay 
application  while  “barely  bother[ing]  to  explain  [our]  con-
clusion,”  a  disposition  that  was  labeled  as  “emblematic  of 
too  much  of  this  Court’s  shadow-docket  decisionmaking—
which  every  day  becomes  more  unreasoned.”    Whole 
Woman’s Health v. Jackson, 594 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2021) 
(KAGAN, J., dissenting from denial of application for injunc-
tive relief) (slip op., at 1–2).  And in a third case in which a 
stay was granted, we were condemned for not exhibiting the 
“restraint”  that  was  supposedly  exercised  in  the  past  and
for not “resisting” the Government’s effort to “shortcut” nor-
mal  process.  Barr  v.  East  Bay  Sanctuary  Covenant,  588 
U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting) (slip op.,
at  5).  Cf.  Does  1–3  v.  Mills,  595  U. S.  ___,  ___  (2021) 
(BARRETT, J., concurring in denial of application for injunc-
tive  relief)  (slip  op.,  at  1)  (warning  that  the  Court  should 
not act “on a short fuse without benefit of full briefing and 
oral argument” in a case that is “first to address the ques-
tions presented”). 

I  did  not  agree  with  these  criticisms  at  the  time,  but  if
they were warranted in the cases in which they were made,
they are emphatically true here.  As narrowed by the Court 
of Appeals, the stay that would apply if we failed to broaden
it would not remove mifepristone from the market.  It would 
simply restore the circumstances that existed (and that the 
Government defended) from 2000 to 2016 under three Pres-
idential  administrations.  In  addition,  because  the  appli-
cants’ Fifth Circuit appeal has been put on a fast track, with 
oral argument scheduled to take place in 26 days, there is
reason  to  believe  that  they  would  get  the  relief  they  now 
seek—from  either  the  Court  of  Appeals  or  this  Court—in 
the  near  future  if  their  arguments  on  the  merits  are  per-
suasive. 

At present, the applicants are not entitled to a stay be-
cause they have not shown that they are likely to suffer ir-
reparable harm in the interim.  The applicants claim that