The Supreme Court handed Donald Trump a win Democrats are going to hate

Democrats took on the chin once again at the nation’s highest court.

It’s bad news all around.

And the Supreme Court handed Donald Trump a win Democrats are going to hate.

Supreme Court rules on Idaho transgender surgery ban

The Supreme Court allowed a common sense law by the Idaho State Legislature to take effect that bans transgender surgeries for minors.

This protects children from transgender activists and woke doctors who prey on them experiencing normal childhood feelings of trying to figure out who they are to lure them into undergoing life-altering surgeries that permanently alter their bodies.

Conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas found that no one was harmed by allowing the law to go into effect except against the two transgender girls who sued as plaintiffs.

“The plaintiffs face no harm from the partial stay the State requests,” the three justices wrote. “Even with it, the district court’s preliminary injunction will operate to prevent state authorities from taking any action to interfere with their ability to access the particular drug treatments they seek.”

A recent student from the Netherlands found that gender dysphoria among children is just a phase that most grow out of.

Researchers tracked 2,700 children from age 11 through mid-20s and found that around 10 percent reported questioning their gender at age 11, but that number dropped to 4 percent by age 25.

What does this decision mean for Trump?

Even court cases that never mention Trump’s name, it ties back to him.

Buried in the opinion was an argument made by Justices Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas that lower courts had overstepped their bounds by issuing nationwide injunctions blocking policy wholesale.

Courts issued 12 nationwide injunctions in former President George W. Bush’s two terms in office, 19 in Barack Obama’s eight years as President, and 55 in Trump’s single term.

Whenever Trump would issue an executive order Democrats would run to the most left-wing district court judges in Hawaii, Washington State, or California and an order halting the policy from taking effect.

In their opinion, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch warned that nationwide injunctions were on borrowed time and that this case, where the policy can take effect except against the parties alleging harm in the lawsuit, should serve as a model for lower courts going forward.

“Lower courts would be wise to take heed. Retiring the universal injunction may not be the answer to everything that ails us. But it will lead federal courts to become a little truer to the historic limits of their office; promote more carefully reasoned judicial decisions attuned to the facts, parties, and claims at hand; allow for the gradual accretion of thoughtful precedent at the circuit level; and reduce the pressure on governments to seek interlocutory relief in this Court. A return to a more piecemeal and deliberative judicial process may strike some as inefficient. It may promise less power for the judge and less drama and excitement for the parties and public. But if any of that makes today’s decision wrong, it makes it wrong in the best possible ways, for “good judicial decisions are usually tempered by older virtues,” Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch wrote.

If Donald Trump wins the election and Democrats try and repeat their nationwide injunction strategy in his second term, the conservatives on the court are signaling they will step in to end the practice if the lower courts don’t get a handle on their own business.