Casting aside longstanding precedent, the Court invents a constitutional right to avoid exposure to ‘subtle’ themes ‘contrary to the religious principles’ that parents wish to instill in their children.

As every conceivable source of law confirms, birthright citizenship is the law of the land.

No right is safe in the new legal regime the court creates.

Such complicity should know no place in our system of law.

Suppose an executive order barred women from receiving unemployment benefits or black citizens from voting.

The gamesmanship in this request is apparent and the Government makes no attempts to hide it.

Schools may instead censor their curricula, stripping material that risks generating religious objections.

It is inconceivable that learning should be shackled to a moment in time.

The ruling ushered in a 'new reality' that casts aside long-standing precedent.

The Government does not ask for complete stays of the injunctions, as it ordinarily does before this Court. Why? The answer is obvious: To get such relief, the Government would have to show that the Order is likely constitutional, an…

rewarding lawlessness

To get such relief, the Government would have to show that the Order is likely constitutional, an impossible task