Cite as: 605 U. S. ____ (2025) 1

JACKSON, J., dissenting

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________

No. 24A1051 _________________

LAUREL D. LIBBY, ET AL. v. RYAN M. FECTEAU, SPEAKER OF THE MAINE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, ET AL. ON APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION [May 20, 2025]

The application for injunction pending appeal presented to JUSTICE JACKSON and by her referred to the Court is granted pending disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be de- nied, this order shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the order shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR would deny the application. JUSTICE JACKSON, dissenting from the grant of the appli- cation for injunction. I would deny the application. These applicants seek an injunction pending appeal. “The All Writs Act, 28 U. S. C. §1651(a), is the only source of this Court’s authority to issue [such] an injunction.” Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 507 U. S. 1301, 1303 (1993) (Rehnquist, C. J., in chambers). And under our well-established rules, relief of this sort “is not a matter of right, but of discretion sparingly exercised.” Supreme Court Rule 20.1. We have long recognized that this injunc- tive relief is appropriate only when “critical and exigent cir- cumstances” exist necessitating intervention “in aid of [our] 2 LIBBY v. FECTEAU

JACKSON, J., dissenting

jurisdictio[n],” and the applicants’ entitlement to relief is “indisputably clear.” Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. Federal Election Comm’n, 542 U. S. 1305, 1306 (2004) (Rehnquist, C. J., in chambers) (internal quotation marks omitted). In my view, these applicants have not met this high bar. First, the applicants have failed to show that there exist “critical and exigent circumstances” necessitating interven- tion “in aid of [our] jurisdictio[n],” ibid.—what I have else- where called a “line-jumping justification,” Labrador v. Poe, 601 U. S. ___, ___ (2024) (opinion dissenting from grant of stay) (slip op., at 1). The First Circuit is moving quickly to evaluate the legal issues this case presents, with oral argu- ment scheduled to occur in a few weeks. Meanwhile, before us, the applicants have not asserted that there are any sig- nificant legislative votes scheduled in the upcoming weeks; that there are any upcoming votes in which Libby’s partici- pation would impact the outcome; or that they will other- wise suffer any concrete, imminent, and significant harm while the lower court considers this matter. Second, the applicants have not satisfied our normal cer- tiorari factors, such as demonstrating the need to resolve a circuit split. Supreme Court Rule 10. Instead, they request highly fact-specific error correction concerning a question of first impression that is unlikely to recur. We have long rec- ognized that, to avoid end runs around the ordinary certio- rari process, emergency relief should not be granted if the Court would have been unlikely to grant review of the mat- ter in any event. See Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U. S. 183, 190 (2010) (per curiam); Does v. Mills, 595 U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (BARRETT, J., concurring in denial of application for injunctive relief ) (slip op., at 1). Denying emergency relief in a case that does not satisfy the usual certiorari factors also avoids creating perverse incentives to seek our inter- vention prematurely—why would any applicant who thinks the lower courts are mistaken wait for those courts’ final Cite as: 605 U. S. ____ (2025) 3

JACKSON, J., dissenting

word on an issue if real-time error correction via our emer- gency docket is readily available? Third, these applicants have failed to demonstrate that their right to this relief is “ ‘indisputably clear.’ ” Wisconsin Right to Life, 542 U. S., at 1306. The Rules of the Maine House of Representatives—adopted by the 132d Maine Leg- islature long before the events at issue here took place— contemplate stripping a legislative member of the ability to vote as a sanction for certain ethical violations. See 2025 WL 1148726, *2 (D Me., Apr. 18, 2025). The House deter- mined that Representative Libby violated those rules, thereby triggering this sanction, when she engaged in be- havior that a majority of the House determined “may en- danger [a] minor.” H. Res. in No. 1:25–cv–83 (D Me., Apr. 1, 2025), ECF Doc. 29–4, p. 1. Whether the House’s censure and resulting sanction vio- late Libby’s constitutional rights, or those of her constitu- ents, raises many difficult questions. What are the limits on a state legislature’s ability to bind its members to ethics rules? Do federal courts have the authority to determine that those rules are improper? Does it violate a representa- tive’s First Amendment rights to be subject to sanction un- der such rules, and does it make a difference what the sanc- tion is? What rights does the Federal Constitution give constituents to override the enforcement of ethics rules of their state legislature? Does a federal court have the power to enjoin state representatives from enforcing a state legis- lature’s ethics rules? And may the court enjoin legislative employees from carrying out the will of the state legislature with respect to that enforcement? This Court has neither addressed nor answered most of these questions. See, e.g., Houston Community College Sys- tem v. Wilson, 595 U. S. 468, 482–483 (2022) (declining to consider whether a censure accompanied by punishment could constitute First Amendment retaliation). Others im- 4 LIBBY v. FECTEAU

JACKSON, J., dissenting

plicate tensions in our precedent that lack an obvious reso- lution. Compare Powell v. McCormack, 395 U. S. 486, 504– 506 (1969) (legislative immunity does not bar suit against nonrepresentative employees), with Gravel v. United States, 408 U. S. 606, 618 (1972) (legislative immunity ex- tends to acts of nonlegislators “insofar as the conduct of the [employee] would be a protected legislative act if performed by the Member himself ”). It is certainly possible that the applicants have the better of the arguments on the merits of their claims. But in the absence of binding precedent on any of these issues, their right to relief is not clear, let alone indisputably so. * * * Not very long ago, this Court treaded carefully with re- spect to exercising its equitable power to issue injunctive relief at the request of a party claiming an emergency. The opinions are legion in which individual Justices, reviewing such requests in chambers, declined to intervene—reiterat- ing that “such power should be used sparingly and only in the most critical and exigent circumstances.” Williams v. Rhodes, 89 S. Ct. 1, 2, 21 L. Ed. 2d 69 (1968) (Stewart, J., in chambers); see also Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc. v. NRC, 479 U. S. 1312, 1313 (1986) (Scalia, J., in chambers); South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. New- som, 590 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2020) (ROBERTS, C. J., concur- ring in denial of application for injunctive relief ) (slip op., at 1–2). Those days are no more. Today’s Court barely pauses to acknowledge these important threshold limitations on the exercise of its own authority. It opts instead to dole out er- ror correction as it sees fit, regardless of the lack of any ex- igency and even when the applicants’ claims raise signifi- cant legal issues that warrant thorough evaluation by the lower courts that are dutifully considering them. Cite as: 605 U. S. ____ (2025) 5

JACKSON, J., dissenting

I think this clear departure from past practice is both in- equitable and unwise. For one thing, the Court’s failure to articulate clear standards for when emergency relief is ap- propriate makes it difficult to confidently conclude that any such standards are actually being referenced and applied evenhandedly. Cf. Merrill v. Milligan, 595 U. S. ___, ___– ___ (2022) (KAGAN, J., dissenting from grant of applications for stays) (slip op., at 11–12) (observing that our ordinary appellate processes “serve both to constrain and to legiti- mate the Court’s authority”). Also, as a practical matter, it is plainly prudent to reserve our emergency docket for ap- plicants who demonstrate that they truly need our help now. In the absence of that showing, we can, and should, allow even applicants with credible merits claims to litigate their arguments in the lower courts before we get involved. Cf. Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 718, n. 7 (2005) (demonstrating that, at least sometimes, we opt to proceed as if “we are a court of review, not of first view”). The watering down of our Court’s standards for granting emergency relief is, to me, an unfortunate development. Af- ter all, the manner in which we handle emergency applica- tions—“on a short fuse without benefit of full briefing and oral argument,” Does, 595 U. S., at ___ (opinion of BARRETT, J.) (slip op., at 1)—is hardly a model for sound decisionmak- ing. At the very least, by lowering the bar for granting emergency relief, the Court itself will bear responsibility for the resulting systemic disruption, as a surge in requests for our “extraordinary” intervention—at earlier and earlier stages of ongoing lower court proceedings, and with greater and greater frequency—will undoubtedly follow.