Department of Homeland Security v. League of Women Voters · ¶49

As I noted previously, a stay applicant must also show “that it will suffer irreparable harm while the case proceeds, and that, on balance, the equities . . . favor a stay.” Trump v. California, 609 U. S. ＿＿＿, ＿＿＿ (2026) (dissenting opinion) (slip op., at 6). The majority’s analysis of those factors is faulty. First, the per curiam finds that the Government is irreparably harmed absent a stay because the District Court “set aside an important federal program.” Ante, at 5. But if the Government has failed to show that modified SAVE comports with the Social Security Act, then disabling the Government from using that program is not a cognizable harm. It cannot be that the Government is “injured whenever [it] is prevented from” violating the law. Trump v. Orr, 607 U. S. ＿＿＿, ＿＿＿ (2025) (JACKSON, J., dissenting from grant of stay) (slip op., at 10); see also California, 609 U. S., at ＿＿＿,…

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.