Trump v. Slaughter · ¶226

Along every metric that the Court usually considers in this context, Humphrey’s should have survived. Humph rey’s is not wrong, let alone egregiously so. The majority hardly “even acknowledge[s] the important reliance interests that [Humphrey’s] ha[s] generated.” Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard Col lege, 600 U. S. 181, 376 (2023) (SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting). It “discards a known, workable, and predictable standard in favor of something novel and probably far more complicated,” with revolutionary consequences for our Government. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U. S. 215, 394 (2022) (joint opinion of Breyer, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., dissenting). In the end, it is the majority’s rule, not Humphrey’s, that “short-circuit[s] the democratic process” by eliminating an option for the political branches that has existed at least since…

slip opinion, revised 7/07/26
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.