Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Gloucester Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. G.G.

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided August 3, 2016No. 16A52PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1ConcurrenceJustice Breyer

In light of the facts that four Justices have voted to grant the application referred to the Court by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, that we are currently in recess, and that granting a stay will preserve the status quo (as of the time the Court of Appeals made its decision) until the Court considers the forthcoming petition for certiorari, I vote to grant the application as a courtesy. See Medellín v. Texas , 554 U.S. 759, 765, 129 S.Ct. 360, 171 L.Ed.2d 833 (2008) (BREYER, J., dissenting).

Justice GINSBURG, Justice SOTOMAYOR, and Justice KAGAN would deny the application.

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Medellin v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 2008

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Dodds v. United States Department of EducationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2016
  2. Action NC v. StrachDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · 2016
  3. Franciscan Alliance, Inc. v. BurwellDistrict Court, N.D. Texas · 2016
  4. Board of Education v. United States Department of EducationDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 2016
  5. Evancho v. Pine-Richland School DistrictDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2017

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API