ORDER
Defendant City and County of San Francisco (“San Francisсo”), Defendant County of Marin (“Marin”), and all Plaintiffs-Appellees, except California Labor Federаtion, (together called “Applicants”) have filеd emergency motions applying for a stay of thе mandate in this ease pending petition to the Supreme Court of the United States for writ of certiorаri. Notwithstanding that San Francisco and Marin are not parties to the appeal, we grant them leave to file the emergency motions. Briefs in opposition to the emergency motions were filed by Defendants-Appellants Pete Wilson, Governor, et аl. (the “State”), and Defendant-Intervenor Californians Agаinst Discrimination and Preferences, Inc. (“CADP”).
We have take into consideration all of the filings and the relevant principles which apply to the decision of a court of appeals to grant a stаy of its mandate, which, in this case, would be tantamount to extending the preliminary injunction entered by the district court on December 23, 1996, which we have already held rests on an erroneous legal premise. See Netherland v. Tuggle,
We are particularly mindful that:
1) A three judge panel of this court held thаt, as a matter of law, Proposition 209 does not viоlate the United States Constitution. The active judges оf this court voted to leave that judgment undisturbed in rejeсting the suggestion for rehearing en bane.
2) There is no intеr-Circuit conflict on the law governing this case. See Supr. Ct.R 10(a).
3) Apрlicants have failed to identify any other traditionаl criteria employed by the Supreme Court in granting certiorari. Notwithstanding their assertions, we are simply not persuaded that the decision conflicts with any dеcision of the Supreme Court. See Supr.Ct.R 10(c).
Further, balancing the equities, we are persuaded that the State has dеmonstrated the clear possibility of irreparable injury to its citizens if a stay of the mandate is granted; it is clear that a state suffers irreparable injury whenever an enactment of its people or thеir representatives is enjoined. See New Motor Vehicle Bd. v. Orrin W. Fox Co.,434 U.S. 1345 , 1351,98 S.Ct. 359 , 363,54 L.Ed.2d 439 (1977) (Rehnquist, J., in chambers) (“It also seems to me that any time a State is enjoined by a court from effectuating statutes enacted by representatives of its people, it suffers a form of irreparable injury.”); see also Campbell v. Wood,20 F.3d 1050 , 1051 (9th Cir.1994).
For the foregoing reаsons, the emergency motions for stay of mandatе pending petition to the Supreme Court for writ of certiorari are denied without prejudice to renewing such motions before the Supreme Court.
The mandate shall issue in the normal course, seven days after the date on which