Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21a90_6j37.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

Cite as:  595 U. S. ____ (2021) 

1 

BARRETT, J., concurring 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 21A90 
_________________ 

JOHN DOES 1–3, ET AL. v. JANET T. MILLS, 
GOVERNOR OF MAINE, ET AL. 

ON APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

[October 29, 2021] 

The application for injunctive relief presented to JUSTICE 

BREYER and by him referred to the Court is denied. 

JUSTICE  BARRETT,  with  whom  JUSTICE  KAVANAUGH 
joins, concurring in the denial of application for injunctive 
relief. 

When this Court is asked to grant extraordinary relief, it 
considers,  among  other  things,  whether  the  applicant  “ ‘is 
likely to succeed on the merits.’ ”  Nken v. Holder, 556 U. S. 
418, 434 (2009).  I understand this factor to encompass not
only an assessment of the underlying merits but also a dis-
cretionary judgment about whether the Court should grant
review  in  the  case.    See,  e.g.,  Hollingsworth  v.  Perry,  558 
U. S. 183, 190 (2010) (per curiam); cf. Supreme Court Rule 
10.  Were the standard otherwise, applicants could use the
emergency  docket  to  force  the  Court  to  give  a  merits  pre-
view in cases that it would be unlikely to take—and to do
so on a short fuse without benefit of full briefing and oral 
argument.  In  my  view,  this  discretionary  consideration 
counsels against a grant of extraordinary relief in this case,
which is the first to address the questions presented.