Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23a814_febh.pdf
Page Number: 5

Cite as:  601 U. S. ____ (2023) 

5 

BARRETT, J., concurring 

make an intelligent decision on the motion for a stay pend-
ing appeal.  Once the court is equipped to rule, its obligation
to  apply  the  Nken  factors  is  triggered—a  point  that  some
judges have pressed their Circuits to consider.  See, e.g., Doe 
#1, 944 F. 3d, at 1226 (Bress, J., dissenting); National Ur-
ban League, 977 F. 3d, at 705, n. 5 (Bumatay, J., dissent-
ing).  The United States suggests that, on several occasions, 
the Fifth Circuit has allowed administrative stays to linger
for so long that they function like stays pending appeal.  Ap-
plication to Vacate Stay 15, n. 3.

The  time  may  come,  in  this  case  or  another,  when  this
Court is forced to conclude that an administrative stay has 
effectively become a stay pending appeal and review it ac-
cordingly.  But at this juncture in this case, that conclusion 
would be premature.  The applicants’ opposition to the ad-
ministrative stay included a request that any such stay it-
self be stayed for seven days pending an application to this 
Court, and the Fifth Circuit granted that request in its or-
der.  It  is  surprising  that  both  the  parties  and  the  panel 
contemplated from the start that this Court might review
an administrative stay.  Before this Court intervenes on the 
emergency  docket,  the  Fifth  Circuit  should  be  the  first 
mover: It should apply the Nken factors and decide the mo-
tion  for  a  stay  pending  appeal.    It  can  presumably  do  so
promptly.  Texas’s  motion  for  a  stay  pending  appeal  was
fully  briefed  in  the  Fifth  Circuit  by  March  5,  almost  two 
weeks ago.  Merits briefing on Texas’s challenge to the Dis-
trict Court’s injunction of S. B. 4 is currently underway.  If 
a decision does not issue soon, the applicants may return to 
this Court.