Injunctions vs. Governing

SCOTUS allows those authorized to govern to govern

Governing Right is offering a special deal. If you become a paid subscriber now, you can give TWO free 6-month paid-subscriptions to anyone of your choice. You can support this column and give away two gifts!

---

Barrett’s Big Decision

In a recent column, I wrote the following:

I’m a fan of Justice Amy Coney Barrett. I like her temperament—her precision, her understatement, her thoughtfulness—and her philosophical approach to the law. As the least senior conservative on the Court, she doesn’t get the chance to write many huge decisions, but once she does, I think her reputation will grow and grow.

Just three days later, Barrett penned one of the final decisions of the Court’s term, a careful, memorable opinion on the constitutionality/legality of universal injunctions—the ability of federal judges to stop executive-branch actors from administering policies.

Much of the commentary about this decision (Trump v. CASA) focused on its hot-button aspects: A win for President Trump, a signal about birthright citizenship, the salty words for Justices Jackson’s and Sotomayor’s dissents, and so on.

But like the reporting that tries to understand Barrett through the lens of politics, those fight-focused takes miss the real, more staid story. The opinion was modest, studied, and correct. It was faithful to statutory language, it used history properly, it constrained adventuring judges, and, most importantly, it will allow those entrusted with governing authority to govern until a full process determines they must stop.