This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The case concerns whether Congress intended different standards for stays and injunctions, as reflected in the statutory language of (b)(3)(B) and (f)(2).
Petitioner argues the terms indicate distinct forms of relief, while the respondent argues the standards are virtually identical.
Background and question before the Court
Oral argument before the Supreme Court took place at 1:00 p.m.
According to Justice Kennedy, the Court asked what the major difference is between the standards for a preliminary injunction and a stay.
What each side argues
Petitioner Position
According to Petitioner, congress used different words (“stay” in (b)(3)(B) and “enjoin” in (f)(2)) to signal different forms of relief.
According to Ms. Harrison, the government’s interpretation that a stay would violate the statute is inconsistent with the text of (f)(2).
Respondent Position
According to Respondent, the government contends that the two standards are virtually identical.
What happened at oral argument
Chief Justice Roberts asked whether stays are usually granted in this type of case.
According to Justice Scalia, justice Scalia noted that deciding it the same way twice would be improper.
Chief Justice Roberts asked if references to equitable relief and restrain are clear enough to cover the Court’s authority to grant a stay.
Justice Kennedy asked what the major difference is between the standards for a preliminary injunction and a stay.
Justice Kennedy also asked whether the same standard would be applied in future years.
Justice Breyer asked how the process is supposed to work.
Justice Ginsburg asked a technical point.
Justice Stevens asked whether the government’s interpretation that the stay violated the statute was correct.
The Court granted the stay in connection with the granting of certiorari.
- [1] 60a8cb96b02304fc80d5-r1-4ca0a58fa4da8a3b.pdf, p. 4
- [2] 60a8cb96b02304fc80d5-r1-4ca0a58fa4da8a3b.pdf, p. 9
- [3] 60a8cb96b02304fc80d5-r1-4ca0a58fa4da8a3b.pdf, p. 20
- [4] 60a8cb96b02304fc80d5-r1-4ca0a58fa4da8a3b.pdf, p. 21
- [5] 60a8cb96b02304fc80d5-r1-4ca0a58fa4da8a3b.pdf, p. 50
- [6] 60a8cb96b02304fc80d5-r1-4ca0a58fa4da8a3b.pdf, p. 37
- [7] 60a8cb96b02304fc80d5-r1-4ca0a58fa4da8a3b.pdf, p. 46
- [8] 60a8cb96b02304fc80d5-r1-4ca0a58fa4da8a3b.pdf, p. 56
- [9] 60a8cb96b02304fc80d5-r1-4ca0a58fa4da8a3b.pdf, p. 45
What the Court decided
Why it matters
The case concerns whether Congress intended different standards for stays and injunctions, as reflected in the statutory language of (b)(3)(B) and (f)(2).
The Court granted a stay in connection with the granting of certiorari.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 60a8cb96b02304fc80d5-r1-4ca0a58fa4da8a3b.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 23, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.