@InHeavenThereIsNoBeer I'm not so sure about that. From what Elderberry posted above, it looks like what SCOTUS ruled was that the plaintiffs trying to stop him didn't have standing to get a court to do so. That's a long way from even deciding that no plaintiffs would have standing, let alone that they or others can't get it stopped for other reasons.
Well...yes and no. I made my comment about what I believe SCOTUS is "likely" to do if there is another district court injunction based on the following:
1) The language actually was
"Among the reasons is that the government has made a sufficient showing at this stage that the plaintiffs have no cause of action to obtain review of the Acting Secretary's compliance with Section 8005." That rather strongly suggests that there are reasons
in addition to standing they didn't discuss in this slip opinion.
2) Standing in cases challenging a government policy like this is always going to be tough because just being a member of the public objecting to the President spending money isn't enough to create standing. You have to show a particularized harm to
you, and not simply be acting as a "private attorney general" challenging a government action you believe is unlawful. However, the Court has -- though they wouldn't admit it -- applied standing requirements rather leniently in cases where they believe there really is a violation of the Constitution. They chose not to bend standing rules here, which suggests to me the majority does not believe there is a Constitutional violation.
3. In this particular case, standing is going to be even more difficult than usual to establish because the funds are only being used to turn existing fences into actual walls. So those seeking standing are going to have to show they are harmed personally by turning a pre-existing fence -- which is already permitted, with rights of way, environmental impact and property usage issues already baked in) into a wall. That's going to be
really tough.
4. As noted by the dissent, there are factors other than likelihood of success on the merits that go into whether or not injunctive relief should have been granted. In particular, the likelihood of irreparable harm. This decision by the 5 judges in the majority meant that they agreed that the government will be irreparably harmed by any injunction preventing the use of these funds for the wall. That's a really big deal, and will apply in any future cases that are brought. SCOTUS has previously refused to take up some of these direct appeals of bogus injunctions because of the lack of immediate, irreparable harm. That they did so in this case bodes very well for any future attempts by lower court judges to delay wall construction by issuing bogus injunctions they know would be eventually overturned. In other words, SCOTUS won't let any of these stand simply by declining to intervene.
So like I said, I think this makes it
likely that SCOTUS is going to slap down future attempts, and won't waste any time doing so because it already has recognized the irreparable harm.
