Skip to main content
Toggle navigation
Friendica
Search
2025-07-03 21:02:42
2025-07-03 21:02:42
2025-07-03 20:44:11
9018079
Joshua J. Friedman
2 days ago
•
•
Joshua J. Friedman
2 days ago
•
•
NEW: The Supreme Court green-lights the Trump admin's effort to deport the 8 men now in Djibouti to South Sudan, clarifying its previous order "despite the [Sotomayor] dissent's provocative language."
www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...
Languages
Search Text
Share via ...
⇧
![The motion for clarification is granted. Our June 23 order stayed the April 18 preliminary injunction in full. The May 21 remedial order cannot now be used to enforce an injunction that our stay rendered unenforceable. See Nken v.
Holder, 556 U. S. 418, 428 (2009) (explaining that a reviewing court's stay order "divest[s]" the district court "order of enforceability"). Even if we accepted respondents' characterization of the May 21 order, such a remedy would serve to "coerce" the Government into "compliance" and would be unenforceable given our stay of the underlying injunction.
United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U. S. 258, 303 (1947); see id., at 295 ("The right to remedial relief falls with an injunction which events prove was erroneously issued and a fortiori when the injunction or restraining order was beyond the jurisdiction of the court." (citations and footnote omitted)).
Despite the dissent's provocative language, see post, at 6 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.), a claim that a lower court has failed to give effect to an order of this Court is properly addressed here. General Atomic Co. v. Felter, 436 U. S. 493,](https://friendica.rogueproject.org/photo/preview/640/3181003 "The motion for clarification is granted. Our June 23 order stayed the April 18 preliminary injunction in full. The May 21 remedial order cannot now be used to enforce an injunction that our stay rendered unenforceable. See Nken v.
Holder, 556 U. S. 418, 428 (2009) (explaining that a reviewing court's stay order \"divest[s]\" the district court \"order of enforceability\"). Even if we accepted respondents' characterization of the May 21 order, such a remedy would serve to \"coerce\" the Government into \"compliance\" and would be unenforceable given our stay of the underlying injunction.
United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U. S. 258, 303 (1947); see id., at 295 (\"The right to remedial relief falls with an injunction which events prove was erroneously issued and a fortiori when the injunction or restraining order was beyond the jurisdiction of the court.\" (citations and footnote omitted)).
Despite the dissent's provocative language, see post, at 6 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.), a claim that a lower court has failed to give effect to an order of this Court is properly addressed here. General Atomic Co. v. Felter, 436 U. S. 493,")