I just backed Help save Castro Valley's toy The Prize Booth! on @kickstarter.com www.kickstarter.com/projects/sav...
kickstarter.com
Help save Castro Valley's toy The Prize Booth!
Help us move to a new home in Castro Valley since our old place has been sold and we are being evicted!
![The Court is mindful of Justice Gorsuch's comments in his opinion in APHA and fully agrees that this Court is not free to "defy" Supreme Court decisions and is, in fact, "duty-bound to respect 'the hierarchy of the federal court system.'" APHA, 2025 WL 2415669, at *3 (Gorsuch,
J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (citation omitted). Consistent with these obligations, this Court (and likely all district courts) endeavors to follow the Supreme Court's rulings, "no matter how misguided [it] may think [them] to be." Hutto v. Davis, 454 U.S. 370, 375 (1982) (per curiam). That said, the Supreme Court's recent emergency docket rulings regarding grant terminations have not been models of clarity, and have left many issues unresolved. California was a four-paragraph per curiam decision issued in the context of a stay application. It cited Bowen as good law, stated that the Tucker Act gave the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction over contract claims against the federal government, and then stated that the district court likely](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:qperocfvfqtoco3v276h55lx/bafkreici4baymxfjqgwxmkc5lfa5qppmsz2puktqlajwf7bauymh3belvm)
![lacked jurisdiction "to order the payment of money under the APA," without purporting to explain how the case was distinguishable from Bowen or other related, longstanding precedents.
California, 145 S. Ct. at 968. Then, in APHA, four justices thought grant-termination cases belong, in full, in the Court of Federal Claims, and four justices thought they belong, in full, in federal district court, and the decision was controlled by the vote of a single justice. 2025 WL 2415669, at *1-16. The outcome, which no party had requested, was, thus, inconsistent with the views of eight justices, id. at *16 (Jackson, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), and, again, provided little explanation as to how Bowen, which the controlling concurrence again cited as good law, id. at *2, applied or was distinguishable. This Court understands, of course, that the Supreme Court, like the district courts, is trying to resolve these issues quickly, often on an emergency basis, and that the issues are complex and evolving. See Trump v. CASA, Inc.,
145 S. Ct. 2540, 2567 (2025) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring) ("In justiciable cases, this Court, not the district courts or courts of appeals, will often still be the ultimate decisionmaker as to the interim legal status of major new federal statutes and executive actions."). Given this, however, the Court respectfully submits that it is unhelpful and unnecessary to criticize district courts for
"defy[ing]" the Supreme Court when they are working to find the right answer in a rapidly evolving doctrinal landscape, where they must grapple with both existing precedent and interim guidance from the Supreme Court that appears to set that precedent aside without much explanation or consensus.
28](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:qperocfvfqtoco3v276h55lx/bafkreibjjabel6vlzdfzaprgsa6nrhha4szytb65qhqotcrivakz3x4kkq)
