Screenshot of excerpt from opinion that reads: "Despite this, the New York courts refused to stay the trial court’s order. 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."
![With nowhere else to turn, the applicants asked us to issue a stay, and we have jurisdiction to entertain their application. Title 28 U. S. C. §1257(a) gives us jurisdiction to review “[f]inal judgments or decrees” that are rendered by a State’s highest court and adjudicate federal constitutional claims, and the Court of Appeals’ February 11 order falls
within that category.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:nwnlnixtjh3qhkwpz2uy5uwv/bafkreibhhdcymq4dbg2pzqxsntooytqznjfgrztweju4jb5kdbqpsy6okq)
With nowhere else to turn, the applicants asked us to issue a stay, and we have jurisdiction to entertain their application. Title 28 U. S. C. §1257(a) gives us jurisdiction to review “[f]inal judgments or decrees” that are rendered by a State’s highest court and adjudicate federal constitutional claims, and the Court of Appeals’ February 11 order falls within that category.
1/9: In the New York redistricting case, Justice Alito's justification for why #SCOTUS even had *jurisdiction* to issue a stay is based upon a remarkably misleading portrayal of the state court proceedings.
I realize this is technical, but I wanted to write a short thread to explain the shadiness:
