Trump v. California · ¶84

For its part, the Court has opted to take a blinders-on approach to evaluating the merits of the Government’s arguments about the Order’s directives, present impact, and anticipated effects, despite this Court’s admonition that courts “are not required to exhibit a naiveté from which ordinary citizens are free.” Department of Commerce v. New York, 588 U. S. 752, 785 (2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). The majority’s assertion that the courts below had to “stac[k] hypothetical on hypothetical to speculate that harm will eventually materialize,” ante, at 5, for example, blinks reality. It also unfairly characterizes the lower courts’ careful factfinding and written opinions.

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