I think that was the NNs entire point, though. The majority of Roberts opinion explains why the action was constitutional and then he invents an unprecedented standard of judicial review (especially within this narrow scope) in order to toss the question. If this decision were actually to go into force as strong controlling case law, pretty much any executive agency action could be tossed by the courts as long as an argument might be made that there were pre textual motivations. Since every action has externalities that may or may not be desired, but some of which can be predicted or inferred, literally any action undertaken by an executive agency could be tossed. Its an absurd overreach and Roberts embarrassed himself yet again.
I even reread the full decision.
I am sorry but I think we both are not on the same page. Roberts is not arguing that 'pretextual motivations' can limit the exercise of politically motivated decisions by the executive. He affirmed hte right of the executive to file the question but couldnt rule for the executive because obviously, due to the excess of documents showin Ross pursuing the policy ever since he came into ffice, his application and argument infront of the court was false. His motivation is different and they cant grant him a win because the argument is based on false premise.
Ultimately yes. The executive has the right to ask the question. Have you read the dissents? There are 3 of them. The NN quoted the dissent of Thomas joined by Kava and Gorsh. Bryer was joined by Kagan, Soto and Ginsburg (they pretty much repeat what the district court said word for word). And Alito dissented alone.
I find the conservative minority opinions to be far more compelling BUT I still really believe taht the administration shouldn't have lied in the application. I dont believe that challenges the act as 'pretextual'.
As a side question: Federal courts have issued an unprecedent number of national injunctions in the last 2 years. Do you find that concerning? Either for bias in the courts or for lawlessness in the administration? Do you know if there is any statistic for those decisions?
Ultimately I think I am confused too. I guess there is a reason being a SC judge is such a high status position.