Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23a814_febh.pdf
Page Number: 16

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

1 

KAGAN, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 23A814 
_________________ 

UNITED STATES v. TEXAS, ET AL. 

ON APPLICATION TO VACATE STAY 

_________________ 

No. 23A815 
_________________ 

LAS AMERICAS IMMIGRANT ADVOCACY CENTER, 
ET AL. v. STEVEN MCCRAW, DIRECTOR, TEXAS 
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, ET AL. 

ON APPLICATION TO VACATE STAY 

[March 19, 2024]

 JUSTICE KAGAN, dissenting from denial of applications to 

vacate stay. 

I respectfully dissent from the Court’s denial of this ap-
plication to vacate the stay.  In my judgment, the applicants
satisfy  the  four-factor  test  set  out  in  Nken  v.  Holder,  556 
U. S. 418, 434 (2009), governing when a stay pending ap-
peal is appropriate.  My views of the merits are, as always 
in this posture, preliminary.  But the subject of immigration 
generally, and the entry and removal of noncitizens partic-
ularly, are matters long thought the special province of the 
Federal  Government.  See  Arizona  v.  United  States,  567 
U. S. 387, 394 (2012); Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U. S. 275, 
280 (1876).  Given that established understanding, I would
not allow Texas Senate Bill 4 to go into effect.  And in the 
circumstances, I do not think the Fifth Circuit’s use of an 
administrative  stay,  rather  than  a  stay  pending  appeal,
should  matter.  Administrative  stays  surely  have  their 
uses.  But a court’s unreasoned decision to impose one for