Trump v. California · ¶15

The true “source of any injury” to the States would be the downstream action that the Secretary “might take in the future” to implement §2(a). Trump v. New York, 592 U. S., at 133–134. Emphasis on might. Section 2(a) can be implemented only “[t]o the extent feasible and consistent with applicable law.” 91 Fed. Reg. 17125. And as the Court explained in another case involving a Presidential directive with a similar qualifier: “Any prediction how the Executive Branch might eventually implement” §2(a) while balancing feasibility and lawfulness “is ‘no more than conjecture’ at this time.” Trump v. New York, 592 U. S., at 131. The Secretary’s “eventual action will reflect both legal and practical constraints, making any prediction about future injury just that—a prediction.” Id., at 133; see 91 Fed. Reg. 17125.

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.