Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
UNITED STATES, et al., Applicants v. U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR DISTRICT OF OREGON., 2018 — 139 S. Ct. 1 · caselaw · US
General
UNITED STATES, et al., Applicants v. U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR DISTRICT OF OREGON.
139 S. Ct. 1201 L. Ed. 2d 1112·Supreme Court of the United States·2018
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
UNITED STATES, et al., Applicants
v.
U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR DISTRICT OF OREGON.
No. 18A65.
Supreme Court of the United States
July 30, 2018.
The application for stay presented to Justice Kennedy and by him referred to the Court is denied.
The Government's request for relief is premature and is denied without prejudice. The breadth of respondents' claims is striking, however, and the justiciability of those claims presents substantial grounds for difference of opinion. The District Court should take these concerns into account in assessing the burdens of discovery and trial, as well as the desirability of a prompt ruling on the Government's pending dispositive motions.