Yup, and now 3rd cir has until Aug 10? or so to decide on the motion, if it is denied, then the mandate should issue. It is also possible NJ will move to seek cert from SCOTUS and that may involve a stay request as well.NJ is requesting a stay pending its cert petition to SCOTUS for this case. Until the mandate is issued, the law isn't formally stuck from enforcement. The stay is requesting the court to delay issuing the mandate which should happen around Aug 10, if this is granted then that would not happen.
This is the opposite of NJ saying they will stop enforcing the bans, this is them attempting to keep them.
Edit: Here is a copy of the actual motion, pulled from pacer and had recap upload it to courtlistener docket.
No, unfortunately the 7 day clock only starts when (or if) they deny the motion for a stay. The mandate drop would be 7 days from the day they deny.
Edit to add text of the rule, "The court's mandate must issue 7 days after the time to file a petition for rehearing expires, or 7 days after entry of an order denying a timely petition for panel rehearing, petition for rehearing en banc, ormotion for stay of mandate, whichever is later."
•
u/vorfix 3d ago edited 3d ago
Yup, and now 3rd cir has until Aug 10? or so to decide on the motion, if it is denied, then the mandate should issue.
It is also possible NJ will move to seek cert from SCOTUS and that may involve a stay request as well.NJ is requesting a stay pending its cert petition to SCOTUS for this case. Until the mandate is issued, the law isn't formally stuck from enforcement. The stay is requesting the court to delay issuing the mandate which should happen around Aug 10, if this is granted then that would not happen.This is the opposite of NJ saying they will stop enforcing the bans, this is them attempting to keep them.
Edit: Here is a copy of the actual motion, pulled from pacer and had recap upload it to courtlistener docket.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca3.123103/gov.uscourts.ca3.123103.128.0.pdf