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

Supreme Court

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

136 S. Ct. 2442, 195 L. Ed. 2d 888, 85 U.S.L.W. 3055, 2016 U.S. LEXIS 4361, 2016 WL 4131636

Supreme Court of the United States·Decided August 3, 2016·No. No. 16A52.·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

Justice BREYER, concurring.

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Justice BREYER, concurring.

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.

Gloucester Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. G.G., 136 S. Ct. 2442, 195 L. Ed. 2d 888, 85 U.S.L.W. 3055, 2016 U.S. LEXIS 4361, 2016 WL 4131636 (U.S. 2016).

Pincite

136 S. Ct. 2442 (Gloucester Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. G.G.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related