Trump v. California · ¶64

That straightforward analysis is enough to dispose of, and dispense with, today’s misguided stay request. At bottom, the Government’s irreparable-harm argument is “just another species of the far-fetched contention that the President must be injured whenever he is prevented from doing as he wishes.” Trump v. Orr, 607 U. S. ＿＿＿, ＿＿＿ (2025) (JACKSON, J., dissenting from grant of stay) (slip op., at 10). But the majority proceeds to probe the justiciability of the Plaintiff States’ complaint (as if the States were the ones seeking our intervention), and thereby inappropriately transforms our discretionary emergency docket into a forum for mandatory review of this Administration’s arguments.

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