Mirabelli v. Bonta · ¶32

And contrary to the dissent's charge, granting interim relief is not a sign of the Court's “impatience” to reach the merits. Post, at 503. Instead, the grant refects the Court's judgment about the risk of irreparable harm to the parents. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U. S. 418, 435 (2009). If the parents were probably right but would suffer little harm from the Ninth Circuit's stay, they would not be entitled to interim relief. Ibid. But that is not the situation here. Under California's policy, parents will be excluded—perhaps for years—from participating in consequential decisions about their child's mental health and well-being. Thus, the parents are likely to suffer irreparable harm if California enforces its policy while this litigation winds its way through the courts. Ante, at 497.

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.