Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/19a230_k53l.pdf
Page Number: 4

4 

BARR v. EAST BAY SANCTUARY COVENANT 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

the  District  Court  to  consider  whether  additional  facts 
would warrant a broader injunction.  2019 WL 3850928, *2– 
*3. 

The lower courts’ decisions warrant respect.  A stay pend-
ing  appeal  is  “extraordinary”  relief.    Williams  v.  Zbaraz, 
442 U. S. 1309, 1311 (1979) (Stevens, J., in chambers); see 
also  Maryland  v.  King,  567  U. S.  1301,  1302  (2012) 
(ROBERTS, C. J., in chambers) (listing stay factors).  Given 
the  District  Court’s  thorough  analysis,  and  the  serious
questions that court raised, I do not believe the Government
has carried its “especially heavy” burden.  Packwood v. Sen-
ate  Select  Comm.  on  Ethics,  510  U. S.  1319,  1320  (1994) 
(Rehnquist, C. J., in chambers).  The rule here may be, as 
the District Court concluded, in significant tension with the
asylum statute.  It may also be arbitrary and capricious for 
failing to engage with the record evidence contradicting its 
conclusions.  It is especially concerning, moreover, that the
rule  the  Government  promulgated  topples  decades  of  set-
tled asylum practices and affects some of the most vulnera-
ble people in the Western Hemisphere—without affording 
the public a chance to weigh in.

Setting aside the merits, the unusual history of this case
also  counsels  against  our  intervention.    This  lawsuit  has 
been proceeding on three tracks: In this Court, the parties 
have litigated the Government’s stay request.  In the Ninth 
Circuit, the parties are briefing the Government’s appeal.
And in the District Court, the parties recently participated 
in  an  evidentiary  hearing  to  supplement  the  record.    In-
deed, just two days ago the District Court reinstated a na-
tionwide injunction based on new facts.  See East Bay Sanc-
tuary  Covenant  v.  Barr,  No.  4:19–cv–4073,  Doc.  73  (ND
Cal.,  Sept.  9,  2019).    Notably,  the  Government  moved  to 
stay  the  newest  order  in  both  the  District  Court  and  the 
Ninth  Circuit.    (Neither  court  has  resolved  that  request,
though the Ninth Circuit granted an administrative stay to 
allow further deliberation.)  This Court has not considered