Strange v. Searcy, 135 S. Ct. 940

Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange applied to the Supreme Court for a stay of a federal district court injunction that barred enforcement of Alabama marriage laws defining marriage as between one man and one woman.
The stay request sought to preserve the status quo pending this Court’s forthcoming merits consideration in consolidated same-sex marriage cases (e.g., Obergefell v. Hodges and related cases) scheduled for argument that Term.
The application was presented to Justice Thomas and referred to the full Court; the Court denied the application.
Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia, dissented from the denial, arguing the State met standard stay factors and deserved respect for its enacted laws while the Supreme Court resolves the constitutional question.
The dissent emphasized precedent that routinely stays district-court injunctions against state laws pending appeal and stressed the State’s likelihood of success, irreparable injury from being enjoined, and the public interest in enforcing duly enacted state statutes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Strange)	Defendant's Argument (Searcy)	Held
Whether a stay of the district-court injunction should issue pending Supreme Court review	State likely to succeed on merits; harms from injunction are irreparable; equities favor preserving state law	Denial appropriate; no stay warranted in these circumstances	Application for stay denied by Court; Justice Thomas dissented (would grant stay)
Whether ordinary practice favors suspending injunctions enjoining state laws pending appeal	States usually can show likelihood of success and irreparable injury, so stays are appropriate	Recent denials showed the Court may not treat all such applications alike	Majority denied stay; dissent argued the Court should treat like applicants alike and preserve status quo
Whether the Court’s prior refusal to review similar judgments undermines stay requests	Granting certiorari now strengthens State’s position to obtain a stay	Past denial of certiorari petitions might have suggested less chance of review, but this case has certiorari	Denial of stay despite pending certiorari criticized in dissent
Whether respecting state-enacted laws and voter approval weighs in favor of a stay	Enforcement of duly enacted laws and voters’ will counsel preserving status quo	Countervailing view: lower-court judgments can stand absent a stay	Court denied stay; dissent viewed denial as showing disrespect for States

Herbert v. Kitchen, 571 U.S. _ (2014) (stay granted of district injunction in analogous same-sex marriage context)
McQuigg v. Bostic, 573 U.S. _ (2014) (recent stay in similar circumstances)
United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. _ (2013) (left open certain federalism/constitutional questions related to marriage)
San Diegans for Mt. Soledad Nat. War Memorial v. Paulson, 548 U.S. 1301 (2006) (in-chambers stay by Justice Kennedy)
Maryland v. King, 567 U.S. _ (2012) (discussing irreparable injury to a State when courts enjoin state laws)
New Motor Vehicle Bd. of Cal. v. Orrin W. Fox Co., 434 U.S. 1345 (1977) (per curiam/in-chambers discussion of irreparable harm when state laws are enjoined)