Supreme Supremacy

Two big wins for Trump. First, this one:

Justices ruled 6-3 to allow the lower courts to issue injunctions only in limited instances, though the ruling leaves open the question of how the ruling will apply to the birthright citizenship order at the heart of the case. The Supreme Court agreed this year to take up a trio of consolidated cases involving so-called universal injunctions handed down by federal district judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state. Judges in those districts had blocked Trump's ban on birthright citizenship from taking force nationwide – which the Trump administration argued in their appeal to the Supreme Court was overly broad. The Supreme Court's arguments in May focused little on the merits of those universal injunctions – and on Friday, the court made clear that it is not ruling on whether the birthright citizenship orders are constitutional. Instead, it instructed the lower courts to "move expeditiously to ensure that, with respect to each plaintiff, the injunctions comport with this rule and otherwise comply with principles of equity." They also stayed any enforcement of the orders from taking effect for 30 days. "The applications do not raise – and thus we do not address – the question whether the Executive Order violates the Citizenship Clause or Nationality Act," Justice Amy Coney Barrett said, writing for the majority. "The issue before us is one of remedy: whether, under the Judiciary Act of 1789, federal courts have equitable authority to issue universal injunctions." "A universal injunction can be justified only as an exercise of equitable authority, yet Congress has granted federal courts no such power," she added.

Rogue jusdges have been put on notice. Also, this:

The Supreme Court held that the parents met the legal burden required for a preliminary injunction to block the school board’s policy not to grant opt-outs. “A government burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses ‘a very real threat of undermining’ the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill. And a government cannot condition the benefit of free public education on parents’ acceptance of such instruction,” Alito wrote. The court held that the parents were likely to succeed in their challenge to the board’s policies.

Overall, a good day for the rule of law that liberals are always claiming they want...