Trump v. California · ¶97
Rather than swallow the Government’s gamesmanship whole, the Court should have given this empty, strategic, and bad-faith stay bid the swift rejection it deserves. Cf. Olmstead v. United States, 277 U. S. 438, 483–484 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting) (“The governing principle has long been settled. It is that a court will not redress a wrong when he who invokes its aid has unclean hands. . . . Where the government is the actor, the reasons for applying it are even more persuasive”); Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 593 U. S. 155, 172 (2021) (“If men must turn square corners when they deal with the government, it cannot be too much to expect the government to turn square corners when it deals with them”). Notwithstanding the perceived legal merits of the Government’s standing and ripeness arguments, stay applications call for an equitable judgment. And, all things considered, there is no way to…Read in context ›
slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.