Early SCOTUS Present

Whether the Supreme Court should pause an injunction requiring changes to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's employee health insurance plan.

The Supreme Court is officially off until the new year. Nonetheless, it continues to do some work. For instance, Alito dropped an administrative stay in this case. It is not one of the cases getting much of the attention, just one of the many cases to address. 

The big news was the justices, with three justices dissenting, rejecting a Trump Administration request for a stay in the case involving deploying the national guard in Chicago. 

The unsigned opinion (written in a conversational tone, including talking about how "We" did things; I think Roberts wrote it) is three pages long, which isn't long, but provides more discussion than a usual shadow docket ruling does. 

It is also a limited win as an analysis notes:

The loss in the Illinois case, however, was temporary and provisional, and all but dared the administration to make more extreme arguments. In particular, Mr. Trump could turn to the Insurrection Act, which he has not yet invoked to deploy military forces on domestic soil.

We firmly know it is a six-to-three opinion since the "Court" uses Professor Lederman's approach while Kavanaugh concurs separately.  Chris Geidner summarizes things here.

(Kavanaugh drops a footnote summarizing the rules for immigration authorities stopping people. Some people think this might be a case of him being triggered by the reference to "Kavanaugh stops," a dig at a past concurrence that handwaves the many problems ICE stops have brought.)

Alito (with Thomas) has a much longer dissent, criticizing the majority for using Prof. Lederman's argument since it is allegedly inappropriate to reach out to do so. Suffice it to say, that is far from clear. 

Also, overall, the typical rule is that granting a stay is a high bar. Refusing a stay should generally be the correct approach. The conservatives have all too often ignored that in the case of Donald Trump.  

The remaining arguments apparently are too weak. Gorsuch briefly says something similar. They are, however, not so cautious in other cases. Also, Gorsuch, this time, is not so concerned with federal authority. 

The Roberts Court has been much too supportive of the Trump Administration and Trump personally (Trump v. U.S.). (Alito thinks they are being rather aggressive.) They aren't 100% in the bag. 

The exceptions can be important. Let's keep it in perspective. Take the win while realizing it only goes so far. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!