Missouri v. United States
The Court refused to put on hold a district court order barring Missouri from enforcing H.B. 85, letting the injunction remain in place while the lawsuit continues. Justice Gorsuch agreed with that outcome but emphasized that the lower court's order could only bind Missouri officials and those directly working with them — not private parties who were never before the court.
How it got here: A district court enjoined Missouri from enforcing H.B. 85; Missouri applied for an emergency stay, which Justice Kavanaugh referred to the full Court.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Missouri and co-applicants asked the Supreme Court to pause a federal district court order that barred Missouri's officers, agents, and employees from implementing and enforcing H.B. 85, a state law that was being challenged in litigation. Justice Kavanaugh, who received the application, referred it to the full Court for decision.
The question before the Court
Should the Supreme Court pause a lower-court order blocking Missouri from enforcing its H.B. 85 law while a legal challenge continues in the lower courts?
Why it matters
Missouri's H.B. 85 remains blocked while the underlying legal challenge plays out. Justice Gorsuch's statement signals that any future lower-court injunction reaching beyond named government officials and their direct collaborators to bind private parties or the law's provisions in the abstract would exceed the proper boundaries of federal court power.
What changes now
The district court's injunction blocking Missouri's H.B. 85 remains in effect. The underlying legal challenge continues in the lower courts. Missouri and co-applicants may continue litigating on the merits. Justice Gorsuch's statement leaves open the possibility of future challenges if the injunction is later applied in a way that reaches private parties not before the court.
What this does not decide
The Court did not decide whether H.B. 85 is lawful or constitutional. It also did not rule on whether any broader version of the injunction — one purporting to bind private parties — would be permissible. Those questions remain open.
Concurrences and dissents
Concurrence — Justice Gorsuch
Justice Gorsuch agreed with denying the stay but wrote separately to define the limits of the district court's injunction. In his reading, the order properly binds only Missouri and its officers, agents, and employees — and those in active concert with them. He warned that any injunction reaching private parties not before the court, or targeting the law's provisions in the abstract, would conflict with the traditional equitable powers of federal courts.
Dissent — Justice Thomas
Justice Thomas would have granted Missouri's application and paused the district court's injunction. No reasoning was provided beyond his noted preference to grant the stay.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The full Court, without a formal vote tally, denied Missouri's request to pause the injunction blocking H.B. 85, leaving the district court's order in place while the underlying lawsuit continues.
- Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Alito, agreed with the denial on the specific understanding that the district court's order only bars Missouri and its officers, agents, and employees — and those actively working in concert with them — from implementing or enforcing H.B. 85.
- Gorsuch added a limiting condition: an injunction that purports to reach private parties who were not before the district court, or that targets the challenged law's provisions in the abstract, would exceed what the equitable powers of federal courts allow — citing the Court's 2021 ruling in Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson for that principle.
- Justice Thomas was the only noted vote to grant the stay; no other justice publicly noted a desire to pause the injunction.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson (595 U. S. 30)
Cited as authority for the rule that federal court injunctions cannot bind private parties not before the court.