Thomas pushed to overrule Kagan's order in COVID-related First Amendment case where RFK Jr. serves as co-counsel

[onenote]

4. This move is expressly countenanced by longstanding Supreme Court rule.

While I get the OP's frustration, Stockton et al renewing their application for a stay after Kagan denied it, and specifically asking that the renewed application be presented to Thomas, is precisely what Supreme Court rule 22.4 allows.

Rule 22.4 states, in pertinent part: . A Justice denying an application will note the denial thereon. Thereafter, unless action thereon is restricted by law to the Circuit Justice or is untimely under Rule 30.2, the party making an application, except in the case of an application for an extension of time, may renew it to any other Justice, subject to the provisions of this Rule. Except when the denial is without prejudice, a renewed application is not favored. Renewed application is made by a letter to the Clerk, designating the Justice to whom the application is to be directed, and accompanied by 10 copies of the original application and proof of service as required by Rule 29.

While in this situation, it could allow Thomas to give Stockton what Kagan refused to give him, there are situations where I suspect we would be very happy this rule exists. Imagine, for example, a request for stay presented to Thomas in the first instance because it arises out of the 11th circuit. Being able to renew that request and have it presented to Kagan, or Sotomayor, or Jackson could be a good thing.