BREAKING: SCOTUS reinstates remain in Mexico policy

[Greedo punched first]

This will go to the 5th Circuit and maybe SCOTUS. 5-4 (Roberts the dissenting conservative) against Biden at SCOTUS?

[Greedo punched first]

The judge wants Trump's policy to be permanent.

[Greedo punched first]

The Fifth Circuit orders it reinstated.

[Greedo punched first]

Alito put it up for a vote. The current stay didn’t completely turn away the request for reinstatement.

[Greedo punched first]

All three liberals dissent. I don’t know if the vote was 6-3 or 5-4.

[Greedo punched first]

Does the administration have to do some extra paperwork to get this changed?

Or it it some new permanent interpretation of federal law?

It’s probably some new permanent interpretation of federal law.

[Greedo punched first]

Do we really need to put "BREAKING" in thread titles? Whenever I see the beginning of this thread title on the home page I think that SCOTUS did something new.

How else would you know that there's yet another possibility of a 5-4 decision with Roberts joining the liberals, or possibly a 6-3 decision with Roberts writing a non-controlling concurrence?

The order says the three liberals would grant the application. Is it possible that Roberts voted to grant the application, but did not want his name to be added in this sentence?

I think this sentence is different from a dissent that justices can decide to sign or not, but merely a statement of the fact, that some justices would grant the application. So if Roberts indeed voted for it, I tend to believe his name would be on it.

Yes. It is possible to secretly dissent from an order or per curiam opinion. Dissents aren’t always made public.

[Greedo punched first]

Do we really need to put "BREAKING" in thread titles? Whenever I see the beginning of this thread title on the home page I think that SCOTUS did something new.

How else would you know that there's yet another possibility of a 5-4 decision with Roberts joining the liberals, or possibly a 6-3 decision with Roberts writing a non-controlling concurrence?

The order says the three liberals would grant the application. Is it possible that Roberts voted to grant the application, but did not want his name to be added in this sentence?

I think this sentence is different from a dissent that justices can decide to sign or not, but merely a statement of the fact, that some justices would grant the application. So if Roberts indeed voted for it, I tend to believe his name would be on it.

Your second paragraph is correct. You can't "secretly dissent" from an application for stay. Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan voted to grant the application for stay, the other six voted against doing so.

You actually can secretly dissent. Dissents don’t have to be made public.