The Supreme Court has once again delivered a decisive win for Donald Trump, solidifying his legacy as a president who reshaped the judiciary and left his political opponents scrambling for answers. In a case that should have been a straightforward application of the law, the court ruled in favor of Trump’s position regarding mass layoffs.
It’s become a pattern: Trump’s adversaries, armed with little more than wishful thinking and activist rhetoric, bring their grievances before hand-selected lower courts guaranteed to rule in their favor. The ruling has zilch to do with the Constitution, and naturally, gets overturned by a majority that respects the Constitution.
This latest decision is no exception.
The case centered on whether the Trump administration’s handling of mass layoffs during his tenure violated any statutory or constitutional protections. The answer from the court was a resounding “no.” The majority opinion, rooted in a clear-eyed reading of the law, made it plain that the left’s endless attempts to criminalize Trump’s every move are not only legally bankrupt but also politically tone-deaf.
The order overturns an injunction by Clinton-appointed Judge Susan Illston that blocked reductions in force (RIFs) across multiple federal agencies. Illston had ruled Trump’s executive order likely unlawful, claiming it needed congressional approval.
Even Justice Sonia Sotomayor sided with the administration on this case.
“The plans themselves are not before this Court, at this stage, and we thus have no occasion to consider whether they can and will be carried out consistent with the constraints of law. I join the Court’s stay because it leaves the District Court free to consider those questions in the first instance,” Sotomayor wrote.
The only dissent came from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Joe Biden’s DEI pick for the Supreme Court has been a lightning rod for self-inflicted embarrassment. In her dissent, Jackson doubled down on the same tired talking points that have defined her short tenure: a willingness to twist the law to suit a political agenda and a stubborn refusal to accept the limits of her own authority.
Recommended: The Trump Administration Responds to Amnesty Rumors
Rather than engaging with the actual legal issues at hand, Jackson’s opinion read like a partisan op-ed, heavy on moralizing and light on substance. She blasted the ruling as “hubristic and senseless,” and accused the majority of overruling the lower court from a “lofty perch” without properly considering the facts or evidence.
“In my view, this was the wrong decision at the wrong moment, especially given what little this Court knows about what is actually happening on the ground,” Jackson wrote.
What’s most telling is the left’s reaction. Instead of learning from yet another judicial defeat, they’re doubling down, insisting that the court is “illegitimate” or “politicized” simply because it refuses to rubber-stamp their agenda. Meanwhile, Trump’s supporters have every reason to celebrate. This ruling isn’t just a win for the former president; it’s a win for the rule of law and for every American who believes that justice should be blind, not beholden to the latest progressive cause.
In the end, the message from the Supreme Court is that political theater and legal acrobatics won’t cut it. If Justice Jackson wants to be taken seriously, and not to be seen as an unqualified DEI hire who doesn’t belong on the bench, she’d do well to remember that her job is to interpret the law, not to legislate from the bench.
Another win for Trump, another meltdown from the left. If you’re tired of the media’s double standards and desperate spin, PJ Media is your refuge for honest reporting. We’re not afraid to challenge the narrative and hold the powerful accountable. Become a PJ Media VIP with the promo code FIGHT for 60% off and unlock exclusive content, ad-free reading, and full commenting privileges. The stakes are high — don’t sit on the sidelines. Support fearless conservative journalism that puts America First. Join today!