This reading edition presents the supporting record, including dates, limits and open questions. It preserves the recorded findings; a source note is not a certification that every claim is settled.
- Reviewed on
- 2026-09-05
- Scope
- Five historical Supreme Court records selected to check attribution and legal effect. Not the complete nine-action population; no current docket certification.
- Records
Id Case Docket Date Posture Url Pages Expectation Evidence Finding Action COURT-001 McMahon v. New York 24A1203 2025-07-14 Emergency stay; not a final merits judgment Open source PDF page 1: order and start of dissent Separate what the Court ordered from what a dissent argued. The Court stayed the May 22, 2025 preliminary injunction while appellate proceedings continued under the order’s terms. The short order provides no majority reasoning. Justice Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson. The statement that Congress alone can abolish the Education Department appears in Sotomayor’s dissent. Attribute it to her dissent; do not present it as the majority’s holding. The stay itself does not finally decide the challenged action’s constitutionality. Keep the stay and dissent separately in your finding record. Add the district-court injunction, appeal record, and later disposition before describing the result today. COURT-002 Trump v. Wilcox 24A966 2025-05-22 Emergency stay; merits question expressly left open Open source PDF pages 1–2: order; page 3 onward: dissent Check whether an interim order supplies reasons, even when you disagree with them. The Court stayed two district-court orders concerning removals from the NLRB and MSPB. It reasoned that the Government was likely to show these bodies exercise considerable executive power and weighed the competing harms. It expressly left the ultimate exception question for fuller consideration. This order contains reasons. Kagan’s dissent, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson, challenges its treatment of Humphrey’s Executor. Record both positions. This single order cannot establish how many orders in OC’s larger assessment were reasoned or unreasoned. Record the stated reasons and the dissent’s objection separately. Recover later proceedings before claiming a final merits result or generalizing the order to every independent agency. COURT-003 Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo 22-451 and 22-1219 2024-06-28 Merits decision overruling Chevron; judgments vacated and remanded Open source PDF pages 42–43: majority pages 34–35; page 85: Kagan dissent page 4 Identify the rule changed and the authority that remains. The majority overruled Chevron and required courts to exercise independent judgment about statutory authority. It also preserved respect for valid statutory delegations and acknowledged that executive judgment may inform interpretation. Prior holdings upholding agency actions were not automatically reopened. “Agencies can no longer interpret Congress’s laws” is too broad. The change concerns judicial deference, not a blanket end to agency interpretation. Kagan’s dissent criticizes the transfer of interpretive power to courts; that criticism is not the holding. For a particular rule, identify the statutory delegation and the court’s actual analysis. Do not assume that every earlier agency decision became invalid when Chevron was overruled. COURT-004 Trump v. CASA, Inc. 24A884 / 24A885 / 24A886 2025-06-27 Partial stays; injunction scope, not citizenship merits Open source Majority pages 3–4 and 26 (PDF pages 9–10 and 32) Separate a remedy ruling from a decision on the underlying right. The reasoned majority opinion limited injunctions to relief necessary for plaintiffs with standing. It expressly left the citizenship order’s constitutionality undecided. The relief was partial, not an unconditional removal of every block. This decision cannot support a claim that the Court upheld the citizenship order or gave no reasons. Identify who remained protected and inspect later orders before describing present effects. COURT-005 Noem v. Doe 24A1079 2025-05-30 Interim stay Open source PDF page 1: order; pages 1–8: Jackson dissent Distinguish the order from the dissent. The Court stayed the April 15 Massachusetts order pending appellate proceedings. It supplied no majority explanation. Jackson, joined by Sotomayor, dissented and discussed the statutory case-by-case parole issue. This supports an unexplained interim stay, not a final constitutional holding. The dissent’s account of the statute is not the majority’s holding. Retrieve the lower-court decision and later disposition before assigning a constitutional violation or describing present status. - Population recovery
- Checked
- 2026-09-05
- Historical html source
- CL-009_Who_Is_Government_Working_For_v3.html
- File fingerprint
- 3aac287d8cd476ad9523713581757c2b2868fc7757e3631eb9306500393e7810
- Source status
- Recovered local v3 file; not established as the exact dated July 26 rendering.
- Headline count
- 9
- Supporting category count
- 6
- Supporting categories
Category Source label unverified Birthright citizenship 14th Amendment Mass federal firings Article I / VI Firing the watchdogs for-cause statutes Parole termination case-by-case statute Enforcement stops 4th Amendment Gender directives 5th Amendment - Session record
- Open source
- Session finding
- July 26 log describes seven shadow-docket rows and calls them a thin first read; it also says v3 was set aside at that time.
- Conclusion
- Six categories, seven dataset rows, and nine claimed actions are different units. Do not derive a nine-case denominator from them or treat category labels as verified holdings.
- Required resolution
- Recover the action-to-case crosswalk and dated lower-court/Supreme Court records for each counted action.
- Data link check
- Executive rows
- 2148
- Rows with litigation status
- 1
- Court rows
- 7
- Court rows linked to action
- 0
- Executive file fingerprint
- 843035d6823c93012d8ed53d897d7f036baaf323f38f6011e6eaee0f3061aebd
- Court file fingerprint
- 1527a34736568917f56000cfa700dfa104d0e65f4bc0d7e97f099016dc680dac
- Conclusion
- This local dataset does not supply the required action-to-case crosswalk.