Miller v. — Souter, J., Concurring in Part and Dissenting…

Summary

Justice Souter concurs with the majority on the first two parts of the opinion, agreeing that the PLRA’s automatic‑stay provision is clear and that it may raise due‑process concerns. He dissents from Part III, arguing that the statute could violate the separation of powers when it does not give courts enough time to determine whether the new rule applies to an existing order, and therefore remands for further proceedings. The opinion raises, but does not resolve, the constitutional question and calls for additional fact‑finding.