ROGER KIMBALL: Minuting the minutiae.

For most mortals, most of the time, the deliberations and periodic eructations of the Supreme Court can seem like so many bulletins from the Office of Circumlocution.

Every now and then, however, the Court’s declarations mesmerize the public’s attention.

So it was on Friday, June 27, the last day of the Court’s term. Four cases were up for its scrutiny. One case, a congressional redistricting case in Louisiana, was pushed off to the fall term. (Often described as a “voting rights case,” the real issue is whether redrawing the map to create black-majority districts is permissible.)

Many Americans were happy about the 6–3 decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor, which held that parents in Maryland may opt to keep their children out of primary-school classes that feature “LGBTQ+” storybooks.

The same people who applauded that decision were happy about the 6–3 decision in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, which upheld a Texas law requiring age verification to protect minors from accessing porn sites on the internet.

But the case that really galvanized the public was Trump v. Casa, in which the Court finally began to deal with the outrageous spectacle, unknown until the twentieth century, of district court judges issuing universal injunctions or restraining orders in order to stymie executive—i.e., presidential—actions that they dislike.

Read the whole thing.