Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-726_6jgm.pdf
Page Number: 39

16 

MOYLE v. UNITED STATES 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

III 
Even if the Court is unwilling to decide the statutory in-
terpretation  question,  there  is  no  excuse  for  vacating  the 
stay of the preliminary injunction.  In order to obtain that 
injunction, the Government was required to make a strong
showing  that  it  was  likely  to  prevail  on  the  merits.    See 
Munaf v. Geren, 553 U. S. 674, 690 (2008).  And as I have 
explained, its argument was almost certain to lose.  That in 
itself  is  sufficient  to  preclude  continuation  of  the  prelimi-
nary injunction.

Why then have six Justices voted to vacate the stay?  The 
per curiam itself provides no explanation.  In separate opin-
ions, three of the six agree with the Government’s interpre-
tation of EMTALA, see supra, at 15, n. 17, and that at least 
is an explanation that would make sense if the premise (the 
correctness  of  the  Government’s  interpretation)  were 
sound.  As for the remaining three, their only explanation
is that “the injunction will not stop Idaho from enforcing its 
law in the vast majority of circumstances” and that there-
fore Idaho cannot show that it will be irreparably harmed 
by  allowing  the  injunction  to  remain  in  place  during  the
pendency of the appeal.  Ante, at 7 (BARRETT, J., joined by 
ROBERTS, C. J., and KAVANAUGH, J., concurring).  That jus-
tification is patently unsound.  “ ‘[A]ny time a State is en-
joined by a court from effectuating statutes enacted by rep-
resentatives  of  its  people,  it  suffers  a  form  of  irreparable 
injury.’ ”  Maryland  v.  King,  567  U. S.  1301,  1303  (2012) 
(ROBERTS, C. J., in chambers).  And in this case, Idaho’s in-
jury is not abstract.  As I will explain, it is very likely that 

—————— 
apply to Spending Clause measures or how Idaho can be bound by con-
ditions to which it has never agreed.

JUSTICE JACKSON’s opinion adds nothing to JUSTICE KAGAN’s legal anal-
ysis, but she reads my opinion to suggest “that States have free rein to 
nullify federal law.”  Ante, at 7 (opinion concurring in part and dissenting 
in part).  Anyone who reads my opinion can see that it makes no such 
suggestion but simply explains what the federal law in question means.