McHenry v. Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc.

_________________
_________________
1 Cite as: 604 U. S. ____ (2025)
G
ORSUCH, J., concurring
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 24A653
JAMES R. MCHENRY, III, ACTING ATTORNEY
GENERAL,
ET AL. v. TEXAS TOP COP SHOP,
INCORPORATED,
ET AL.
ON APPLICATION FOR STAY
[January 23, 2025]
The application for stay presented to JUSTICE ALITO and
by him referred to the Court is granted. The December 5,
2024 amended order of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Texas, case No. 4:24–cv–478, is
stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth 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 termi-
nate automatically. In the event certiorari is granted, the
stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judg-
ment of this Court.
J
USTICE GORSUCH, concurring in the grant of stay.
I agree with the Court that the government is entitled to
a stay of the district court’s universal injunction. I would,
however, go a step further and, as the government suggests,
take this case now to resolve definitively the question
whether a district court may issue universal injunctive re-
lief. See Labrador v. Poe, 601 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2024)
(G
ORSUCH, J., concurring in grant of stay) (slip op., at 4–5,
11–13); Department of Homeland Security v. New York, 589
U. S. ___, ___–___ (2020) (G
ORSUCH, J., concurring in grant
of stay) (slip op., at 1–5).

_________________
_________________
Cite as: 604 U. S. ____ (2025) 1
J
ACKSON, J., dissenting
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 24A653
JAMES R. MCHENRY, III, ACTING ATTORNEY
GENERAL,
ET AL. v. TEXAS TOP COP SHOP,
INCORPORATED,
ET AL.
ON APPLICATION FOR STAY
[January 23, 2025]
JUSTICE JACKSON, dissenting from the grant of stay.
However likely the Government’s success on the merits
may be, in my view, emergency relief is not appropriate be-
cause the applicant has failed to demonstrate sufficient ex-
igency to justify our intervention. See Labrador v. Poe, 601
U. S. ___, ___ (2024) (J
ACKSON, J., dissenting from grant of
stay) (slip op., at 1). I see no need for this Court to step in
now for at least two reasons. First, the Fifth Circuit has
expedited its consideration of the Government’s appeal.
Second, the Government deferred implementation on its
own accord—setting an enforcement date of nearly four
years after Congress enacted the law—despite the fact that
the harms it now says warrant our involvement were likely
to occur during that period. The Government has provided
no indication that injury of a more serious or significant na-
ture would result if the Act’s implementation is further de-
layed while the litigation proceeds in the lower courts. I
would therefore deny the application and permit the appel-
late process to run its course.