NEW:

The Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit that would have blocked Trump's census-apportionment memo for lack of standing, a principle Trump vilified before that boosts him now.

This analysis of oral arguments held up.

https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/scotus-appeared-skeptical-of-trumps-census-memo-but-conservative-wing-also-questioned-a-courts-order-blocking-it/

Ruling: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-366_7647.pdf

Justice Breyer, with Justices Sotomayor and Kagan dissenting.

The court's right flank ignored "unusually straightforward" threatened injury that shows standing.

None of the members of the majority signed their per curium ruling.

To be clear, Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh tore Trump's interpretation of the apportionment clause to shreds during oral arguments.

They just kicked the can down the road in finding that.

That delay, @dale_e_ho told me then, could have real consequences.

Read my recap of oral arguments from late last month for background of what's at stake and how the high court's ruling can shape political power in the United States for a decade, long after Trump leaves office on Jan. 20. https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/scotus-appeared-skeptical-of-trumps-census-memo-but-conservative-wing-also-questioned-a-courts-order-blocking-it/

Tl;dr:

There is little doubt that the states and civil rights groups would have beat Trump on the merits had the majority reached them.

There is no doubt that Trump lost many of his anti-democratic post-election cases on the merits, others on standing, which boosted him here.

My colleagues @Aaron_Keller_ and @EluraNanos will cover the fallout of this ruling.

Watch out for their stories at @LawCrimeNews.