Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/19a230_k53l.pdf
Page Number: 5

Cite as:  588 U. S. ____ (2019) 

5 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

the new evidence, nor does it pause for the lower courts to
resolve the Government’s pending motions.  By granting a 
stay,  the  Court  simultaneously  lags  behind  and  jumps
ahead of the courts below.  And in doing so, the Court side-
steps the ordinary judicial process to allow the Government
to implement a rule that bypassed the ordinary rulemaking 
process.  I  fear  that  the  Court’s  precipitous  action  today 
risks undermining the interbranch governmental processes
that  encourage  deliberation,  public  participation,  and 
transparency. 

* 

* 

* 
In sum, granting a stay pending appeal should be an “ex-
traordinary”  act.  Williams,  442  U. S.,  at  1311.    Unfortu-
nately, it appears the Government has treated this excep-
tional  mechanism  as  a  new  normal.  Historically,  the
Government  has  made  this  kind  of  request  rarely;  now  it
does so reflexively.  See, e.g., Vladeck, The Solicitor General 
and  the  Shadow  Docket,  133  Harv.  L. Rev.  (forthcoming 
Nov. 2019).  Not long ago, the Court resisted the shortcut 
the Government now invites.  See Trump v. East Bay Sanc-
tuary Covenant, 586 U. S. ___ (2018).  I regret that my col-
leagues have not exercised the same restraint here.  I re-
spectfully dissent.