Trump v. California · ¶92

In short, none of the justiciability cases the Court relies on supports its conclusion on the facts presented here. And there is obvious tension between today’s reasoning and Bost’s. So the Government has failed to demonstrate a strong likelihood of success on the merits of its standing and ripeness arguments, as our stay precedents require. See Nken, 556 U. S., at 426. The contention that sovereign States with a constitutionally assigned duty to administer elections do not have a concrete injury when the President orders his subordinates to interfere with the ballot-distribution plans those States are in the midst of executing (the majority’s bottom line) is not a strong argument.

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