Jean Marc Nken v. Eric H. Holder, JR., Attorney General (556 U.S. 418)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided April 22, 2009 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 556 U.S. 418 · 129 S. Ct. 1749
- Decided
- April 22, 2009
- Term
- October Term 2008
- Vote
- 7–2
- Majority author
- Justice Roberts
- Issue area
- Civil Rights
- Disposition
- Vacated and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court. It takes time to decide a case on appeal. Sometimes a little; sometimes a lot. “No court can make time stand still” while it considers an appeal, Scripps-Howard Radio, Inc. v. FCC, 316 U. S. 4, 9 (1942), and if a court takes the time it needs, the court’s decision may in some cases come too late for the party seeking review. That is why it “has always been held, . . . that as part of its traditional equipment for the administration of justice, a federal court can stay the enforcement of a judgment pending the outcome of an appeal.” Id., at 9-10 (footnote omitted). A stay does not make time stand still, but does hold a ruling in abeyance to allow an appellate court the time necessary to review it. This case involves a statutory provision that sharply restricts the circumstances under which a court may issue an injunction blocking the removal of an alien from this country. The Court of Appeals concluded, and the Government contends, that this provision applies to the granting of a stay by a court of appeals while it considers the legality of a removal order. Petitioner disagrees, and maintains that the authority of a court of appeals to stay an order of removal under the traditional criteria governing stays remains fully intact, and is not affected by the statutory provision governing injunctions. We agree with…
Excerpt of a 53,093-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.