When it rains, it pours. On Monday, the Supreme Court issued two consequential orders on the emergency docket. First, the Court issued a stay of the trial court's ruling in the Staten Island redistricting case. Second, the Court vacated the Ninth Circuit's stay of the District Court's injunction, which required California schools to notify parents if a child is transitioning genders. There is a common thread in both cases: inferior courts on both coasts used their emergency dockets, and the Supreme Court reversed both rulings.
In the Staten Island case, the New York Court of Appeals (the highest court in New York) did not rule on the applicants' motion to stay the trial court's injunction. Instead, the court found the motion should be resolved in the first instance by the Appellate Division (the intermediate court). There is apparently some disagreement between the Supreme Court and Justice Kagan in dissent, over the meaning of the New York Court of Appeals' action. I say apparently, because the Court does not explain its reasoning. Justice Alito contended in his concurrence that the New York Court of Appeals, by not ruling on the applicants' motion was, in effect a denial.
After that highly questionable injunction was issued, the applicants filed appeals in both the Appellate Division (the State's intermediate appellate court) and the Court of Appeals (its highest court) challenging the trial court's order on federal constitutional grounds. At the same time, applicants asked both courts to stay the trial court's order. The Appellate Division refused to issue a stay, and by order issued on February 11, the Court of Appeals sent the appeal filed in that court to the Appellate Division and dismissed applicants' motions for a stay.
