Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/13pdf/13a1284_ap6c.pdf
Page Number: 7.0

Cite as:  573 U. S. ____ (2014) 

7 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

this  Court’s  pronouncement  in  Hobby  Lobby  “that  the 
accommodation  provision  (applicable  in  this  case)  ‘consti-
tutes an alternative that achieves all of the Government’s 
aims while providing greater respect for religious liberty.’ ” 
Ibid. 

Wheaton  applied  to  JUSTICE  KAGAN,  in  her  capacity  as
Circuit  Justice  for  the  Seventh  Circuit,  for  an  emergency
injunction against enforcement of the law and regulations
pending resolution of its legal challenge.  She referred the 
matter  to  the  Conference,  which  entered  a  temporary 
injunction and called for a response from the Government.
See  ante,  at  ___.  After  receipt  of  the  Government’s  re-
sponse,  the  Court  today  enters  an  order  granting  injunc-
tive relief. 

II
 
A 

I  disagree  strongly  with  what  the  Court  has  done. 
Wheaton  asks  us  to  enjoin  the  enforcement  of  a  duly  en-
acted  law  and  duly  promulgated  regulations  before  the
courts  below  have  passed  on  the  merits  of  its  legal  chal-
lenge.  Relief of this nature is extraordinary and reserved
for the rarest of cases.  With good reason.  The only source
of  authority  for  this  Court  to  issue  an  injunction  pending
review  in  the  lower  courts  is  the  All  Writs  Act,  which 
provides that this Court “may issue all writs necessary or
appropriate in aid of [its] . . .  jurisdictio[n] and agreeable 
to the usages and principles of law.”  28 U. S. C. §1651(a). 
This  grant  of  equitable  power  is  a  failsafe,  “to  be  used 
‘sparingly  and  only  in  the  most  critical  and  exigent  cir-
cumstances.’ ”    Ohio  Citizens  for  Responsible  Energy, 
Inc.  v.  NRC,  479  U. S.  1312,  1313  (1986)  (SCALIA,  J.,  in 
chambers).

Under  our  precedents,  “[a]n  injunction  is  appropriate
only if (1) it is necessary or appropriate in aid of our juris-
diction,  and  (2) the  legal  rights  at  issue  are  indisputably