The U.S. Supreme Court case Jean Marc Nken v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General (2008) revolved around the issue of whether a stay of removal during judicial review should be governed by traditional standards for stays and injunctions or if it required proof that removal is prohibited as a matter of law. Jean Marc Nken, an immigrant from Cameroon who had been denied asylum in the United States and ordered to leave, appealed his deportation order while also requesting a stay on his removal pending this appeal's outcome. The Fourth Circuit Court applied its own standard requiring Nken to demonstrate that he was entitled to withhold deportation as per law rather than applying traditional criteria for granting stays which include likelihood of success on merits, irreparable harm without grant etc.. The Supreme Court disagreed with this approach stating that normal rules governing stays must apply including consideration factors like potential harm to parties involved and public interest considerations. In conclusion, the court ruled in favor of Mr.Nken holding that traditional standards for issuing a stay govern requests made during judicial review under Immigration and Nationality Act §242(b)(3), 8 U.S.C.A.§1252(b)(3). This decision clarified legal principles applicable when immigrants seek temporary relief from enforcement orders while their cases are being reviewed.

In the dissenting opinion for Jean Marc Nken v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, 2008 case, Justice Samuel Alito argued that the majority's decision to apply a traditional four-factor test in determining whether to grant a stay of removal pending judicial review was incorrect and inconsistent with federal immigration law. He contended that Congress had specifically intended for stricter standards to be applied in such cases when it passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) in 1996. According to him, this act made clear that deportation should not generally be delayed while legal challenges are ongoing unless there is a high likelihood of success on those claims or exceptional circumstances exist which justify delay. The majority's approach would make stays more readily available than what Congress intended under IIRIRA.