Cite as:  530 U. S. ____ (2000)           1

                     STEVENS, J., dissenting
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
                           _________________

                           No. 00A145
                           _________________

 UNITED STATES v. OAKLAND CANNABIS BUYERS'
                  COOPERATIVE ET AL.
                 ON APPLICATION FOR STAY
                        [August 29, 2000]

  The application for stay presented to JUSTICE O'CONNOR
and by her referred to the Court is granted as to the order
granting the motion to modify the injunction, and as to
paragraph 6 of the amended preliminary injunction, both
entered by the United States District Court for the North-
ern District of California, Case No. 98­0088 CRB, on July
17, 2000.  The stay shall be in effect pending final disposi-
tion of the appeal by the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit and further order of this Court.

  JUSTICE STEVENS, dissenting.
  When faced with an application of this kind, we are
required to engage in the speculative task of balancing the
"stay equities," INS v. Legalization Assistance Project of Los
Angeles County Federation of Labor, 510 U. S. 1301, 1304
(1993) (O'CONNOR, J., in chambers);  see also  Weinberger v.
Romero-Barcelo, 456 U. S. 305, 322 (1982) (STEVENS, J.,
dissenting) ("Unless Congress specifically commands a
particular form of relief, the question of remedy remains
subject to a court's equitable discretion.").  Because the
applicant in this case has failed to demonstrate that the
denial of necessary medicine to seriously ill and dying pa-
tients will advance the public interest or that the failure to
enjoin the distribution of such medicine will impair the
orderly enforcement of federal criminal statutes, whereas
respondents have demonstrated that the entry of a stay will



2        UNITED STATES v. OAKLAND CANNABIS BUYERS'
                        COOPERATIVE
                     STEVENS, J., dissenting

cause them irreparable harm, I am persuaded that a fair
assessment of that balance favors a denial of the extra-
ordinary relief that the government seeks.  I respectfully
dissent.

     JUSTICE  BREYER took no part in the consideration or
decision of this application.