Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/13pdf/13a1284_ap6c.pdf
Page Number: 8

8 

WHEATON COLLEGE v. BURWELL 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

clear.”  Turner  Broadcasting  System,  507  U. S.,  at  1303 
(brackets,  internal  quotation  marks,  and  citations  omit-
ted).3  To understand how high a bar that second prong is,
consider  that  this  Court  has  previously  pointed  to  differ-
ences of opinion among lower courts as proof positive that 
the standard has not been met.  See Lux v. Rodrigues, 561 
U. S.  1306,  1308  (2010)  (ROBERTS,  C. J.,  in  chambers) 
(observing that “the courts of appeals appear to be reach-
ing divergent results” respecting the applicant’s claim, and
that, “[a]ccordingly, . . . it cannot be said that his right to
relief  is  ‘indisputably  clear’ ”).    Neutral  application  of  this
principle would compel the denial of Wheaton’s application 
without any need to examine the merits, for two Courts of
Appeals that have addressed similar claims have rejected 
them.  See  Notre  Dame  v.  Sebelius,  743  F.  3d  547  (CA7
2014); Michigan Catholic Conference and Catholic Family 
Services v. Burwell, ___ F. 3d ___, 2014 WL 2596753 (CA6, 
June  11,  2014).4    Remarkably,  the  Court  uses  division 
—————— 

3 Indeed,  some  of  my  colleagues  who  act  to  grant  relief  in  this  case
have  themselves  emphasized  the  exceedingly  high  burden  that  an 
applicant  must  surmount  to  obtain  an  interlocutory  injunction  under
the  All  Writs  Act.    See  Lux  v.  Rodrigues,  561  U. S.  1306,  1307  (2010) 
(ROBERTS, C. J., in chambers) (an applicant must demonstrate that “the
legal  rights  at  issue  are  indisputably  clear”  in  order  to  obtain  such
injunctive  relief)  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted);  Respect  Maine 
PAC v. McKee, 562 U. S. ___, ___ (2010) (unlike a stay of a lower court’s
order,  a  request  for  an  injunction  against  the  enforcement  of  a  law 
“ ‘does  not  simply  suspend  judicial  alteration  of  the  status  quo  but 
grants  judicial  intervention  that  has  been  withheld  by  lower  courts’ ”)
(quoting  Ohio  Citizens  for  Responsible  Energy,  Inc.  v.  NRC,  479  U. S. 
1312, 1313 (1986) (SCALIA, J., in chambers)). 

4 To be sure, two other Courts of Appeals have recently granted tem-
porary injunctions similar to the one Wheaton seeks here.  See Order in 
Eternal  Word  Television  Network,  Inc.  v.  Secretary,  U. S.  Dept.  of 
Health and Human Services, No. 14–12696–CC (CA11,  June 30, 2014) 
(granting  injunction  pending  appeal);  Order  in  Diocese  of  Cheyenne  v. 
Burwell, No. 14–8040 (CA10, June 30, 2014) (same).  Although denying
the  injunction  in  this  case  would  produce  a  different  outcome,  the 
Government  could  of  course  move  to  vacate  those  injunctions  were  we