Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-58_i425.pdf
Page Number: 24.0

Cite as:  599 U. S. ____ (2023) 

7 

 GORSUCH, J., concurring
GORSUCH, J., concurring in judgment 

this Court to invoke the All Writs Act, 28 U. S. C. §1651, to 
fashion  its  own  injunction.    And  the  possibility  that  this 
Court might award them relief, the States suggest, makes
their injuries redressable after all.  See Brief for Respond-
ents 47; cf. post, at 12 (ALITO, J., dissenting). 

It’s  an  argument  that  yields  more  questions  than  an-
swers.  The parenthetical the States cite is a “curious” pro-
vision, one that “does not appear to have an analogue else-
where in the United States Code.”  Biden v. Texas, 597 U. S. 
___,  ___  (2022)  (BARRETT,  J.,  dissenting)  (slip  op.,  at  4).
Even assuming it permits this Court to award an injunction
when  a  case  comes  to  us  on  review,  it  does  not  obviously 
solve  the  States’  redressability  problem.    Normally,  after 
all, a plaintiff must establish redressability from the outset
of the suit.  See Lujan, 504 U. S., at 561; see also id., at 570, 
n. 5 (plurality opinion).  Not only that, a plaintiff must show 
a favorable decision is “ ‘likely’ ” to provide effectual relief. 
Id., at 561.  When the States filed this suit, however, the 
possibility that it might find its way to this Court was spec-
ulative at best.  See id., at 570, n. 5 (plurality opinion) (re-
jecting  an  argument  that  redressability  could  depend  on 
“the fortuity that [a] case has made its way to this Court”). 
Nor is that the only complication.  Ordinarily, to win an
injunction from any court, a party must satisfy several fac-
tors.  See eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L. L. C., 547 U. S. 388, 
391 (2006).  The States relegate any mention of these fac-
tors to a short, formulaic paragraph tacked onto the end of
their brief.  See Brief for Respondents 48.  Worse, the only 
injunction  they  seek  is  one  barring  “implementation  and
enforcement”  of  the  Guidelines—essentially  an  injunction 
imitating a vacatur order.  Id., at 47.  And as we have seen, 
an order like that would leave officials with their prosecu-
torial  discretion  intact.    See  supra,  at  6.   So,  even  if  this  
Court were to take the unusual step of issuing and superin-
tending its own injunction, giving the States the very order 
they seek is hardly sure to redress the injuries they assert.