U.S. Supreme Court Opinions are full of Propaganda

[xuenchen]

Many Supreme Court case opinions are full of propaganda, more than most people imagine. They use the opinions (especially from Liberal Justices) to suggest off topic and tangential points that many times have little or nothing to do with the actual case points.  The latest being a case handed down April 4, 2025.

The case was about the Trump Admin holding back grant money from the Dept of Education because of suspected DEI "concerns". Lower court ordered the money to proceed (probably beyond their authority!).

SCOTUS stopped the order and the money ends up being held back.

OK

But now we have the 3 Liberal Justices, Kagen, Jackson, Sotomayer, writing dissent opinions that address secondary points and suggest the lower court single judges should have Executive Power and actually lead to legislating from the bench!!   They seem to purposely ignore the problem of lone Federal Judges making Executive Branch decisions! They ignore the main point of the case!! 

Supreme Court Allows Trump Admin to Freeze Education Grants Over DEI Concerns

 
The Supreme Court has granted President Donald Trump’s request to halt the reinstatement of millions of dollars in Department of Education grants that the government targeted over concerns about diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs.
 
Chief Justice John Roberts would have denied the administration’s request for relief, according to a court document. Justice Elena Kagan issued a dissent, as did Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, whose dissent was joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
 
The Supreme Court’s order blocks another order from a federal judge in Massachusetts and keeps it on hold pending the outcome of an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The court indicated it may grant certiorari, or take up the case for more thorough consideration of the legal arguments involved.
 Trump’s request was on an emergency basis and alleged that the order from U.S. District Judge Myong Joun exceeded his authority. Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris said Joun was interfering with what she described as “essentially a contract dispute that belongs in the Court of Federal Claims, not a district court.”

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ET AL. v. CALIFORNIA, ET AL.