Emergency application
Office of Personnel Management v. American Federation of Government Employees
What did the Court do?
The Court granted the request on April 8, 2025: the lower court's ruling is on hold while the appeal continues.
Emergency rulings are temporary and do not decide the underlying case. Justice Sotomayor would have ruled the other way.
What's being asked
The federal government asks the Supreme Court to pause (stay) a lower-court ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit while the appeal continues. The case is Office of Personnel Management v. American Federation of Government Employees.
What the Court did
Application (24A904) for stay presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court is granted. The March 13, 2025 preliminary injunction entered by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, case No. 3:25-cv-1780, is stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such a writ is timely sought. Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court. The District Court’s injunction was based solely on the allegations of the nine non-profit-organization plaintiffs in this case. But under established law, those allegations are presently insufficient to support the organizations’ standing. See, <i>e.g.</i>, <i>Clapper</i> v. <i>Amnesty Int’l USA</i>, 568 U. S. 398 (2013). This order does not address the claims of the other plaintiffs, which did not form the basis of the District Court’s preliminary injunction. Justice Sotomayor would deny the application. Justice Jackson would have declined to reach the standing question in the context of an application for emergency relief where the issue is pending in the lower courts and the applicants have not demonstrated urgency in the form of interim irreparable harm. See <i>Department of Education</i> v. <i>California</i>, 604 U. S. ___, ___ (2025) (Jackson, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 1–2). Thus, she would have denied the application.
- Dissenting · 1recorded against the Court's order
- Sotomayorwould deny
What it means
This is a temporary order about what happens while the case is decided, not a ruling on who is right. The case continues in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Sources
Facts on this page come from the Supreme Court docket, orders, and opinions for No. 24A904. The answers restate that record in plain words; explainer copy is written from the record and the filings only.