Breaking: Important SCOTUS Win For Trump 2.0

I haven’t been following the legal front of Trump 2.0 too closely because, like Jonathan Turley, I assume that—one way or another—Trump 2.0 will win most of these cases. There’s just no way—or so my thinking goes—that the SCOTUS is going to hamstring the Chief Executive and turn over the reins of government to an unaccountable and para-constitutional “Fourth Branch.”

However, this case is important for a number of reasons. Zerohedge provides a summary of the case. I excerpt the first three paragraphs. The third paragraph tells you why this is important—Trump 2.0 will use this ruling to ask that the other similar cases—and there are a number in the same category—be shut down. Note that Roberts was the fourth in this 5-4 decision, although he didn’t join either dissenting opinion—which means we really have not idea why Roberts didn’t join the majority. Was it some procedural consideration (by guess) or something substantive? If the latter, I assume he would have spoken to that. But that brings us to another important factoid—Justice Amy was part of the majority. She had been displaying a bit of a tendency to go along with Roberts, but not in this important case:

Supreme Court Shuts Down Activist Judge, Lets Trump Cut $250 Million In DEI Training For Teachers

The Supreme Court on Friday overruled an activist judge in Boston, allowing the Trump administration to slash $250 million for more than 100 teacher training grants for DEI and other woke programs.

In a 5-4 decision nine days after the request, the Supremes sided with the Trump administration's emergency request to stay the court order by judge Myong J. Joun of the federal District of Massachusetts - who had ordered the Trump administration to "immediately restore" the "pre-existing status quo prior to the termination."

According to the ruling - which is likely to narrow the ability of district courts to halt agency actions involving grant function, Joun lacked authority to order the Trump admin to restore the funding.

SWC hints at the importance of this case:

Shipwreckedcrew @shipwreckedcrew

Big Supreme Court decision today.

More to it than meets the eye.

5-4 but I think some messages were being sent by the majority.

CJ Roberts in the minority but did not join either dissent.

Substack story in a few hours.

Right. If messages were being sent by the majority, then I’m reassured that Justice Amy was part of that messaging group. The majority opinion itself is a quite brief PER CURIAM order, staying the lower court’s TRO, and that may be the messaging that SWC refers to. The opinion states:

Although the Courts of Appeals generally lack appellate jurisdiction over appeals from TROs, several factors counsel in favor of construing the District Court’s order as an appealable preliminary injunction. Among other considerations, the District Court’s order carries many of the hallmarks of a preliminary injunction. … Moreover, the District Court’s “basis for issuing the order [is] strongly challenged,” as the Government is likely to succeed in showing the District Court lacked jurisdiction to order the payment of money under the APA.

What’s the messaging here?

1. If it looks, walks, and talks like a preliminary injunction, that’s what it is. This is the end of District Courts playing games with nomenclature.

2. Hey, Court of Appeals, it looks to us like the District Court doesn’t have jurisdiction. Maybe that’s what you should say.

3. We’re not gonna waste time smacking these bogus TROs down. A few paragraphs is all you get.

Margot Cleveland spells out the importance of this case for the other similar cases, without getting into any messaging, per se. However, she clearly suggests, as did I above, that Roberts was being pedantically procedural in not joining the majority. That hints at the message to District Courts: Don’t play nomenclature games with us.

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1908261871645323512

Margot Cleveland @ProfMJCleveland

SCOTUS grants stay in case with injunction ordering payment of grants. Reasoning suggests all other cases brought under ADA seeking payment of grants will be stay. I'd wager Roberts might even join if it is a Preliminary Injunction and not a TRO. 1/6

4/6 Trump Administration will likely seek reconsideration of denial of stay in similar cases where it has been denied pending appeal and now has this ruling to oppose injunctions in district courts and seek stay for any challenges under APA of grants terminated.

5/6 As I've said before, the cases the chaos will calm was mandatory precedent is established. While decision isn't on merits and lower courts might try to sidestep by saying harm is greater, SCOTUS decision should caution against lower court's staying.

Roberts’ pedanticism was probably just his icky, passive aggressive way of trying to get back at Trump for past perceived slights by allowing these cases to drag out. I remain confident that Roberts will come down on the right side in the end. It was reassuring that Justice Amy decided that she was above such pettiness.