Pending the second flight of alleged Tren de Aragua gang members out of Texas, the ACLU sought an emergency injunction. Time was short. The threat was clear. Once the bodies were on a plane and the plane was off the ground, the government would claim it was out of their hands and there was nothing they could do. It isn’t true, but that’s the presumptive claim since it’s the same contention made about Abrego Garcia in the first flight.

And the district judge sat on it. And the Fifth Circuit wiped its hand of the problem since it was up to the district judge in the first instance to make a decision. That was the orderly process. That was the way it was supposed to work. And the government promised that no flight would take off that day, although it made no promises as to what would happen after midnight. The Supreme Court, by a 7-2 majority, had enough of being played by the Trump administration, which figured out that by ignoring orderly process, flying them to a life in prison in El Salvador and claiming it was out of their hands, they could beat the system. The Supreme Court said no.

The Fifth Circuit erred in dismissing the detainees’ appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Appellate courts have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders that have “the practical effect of refusing an injunction.” Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U. S. 79, 84 (1981). A district court’s inaction in the face of extreme urgency and a high risk of “serious, perhaps irreparable,” consequences may have the effect of refusing an injunction. 16 C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure §3924.1, pp. 174, 180−181 (3d ed. 2012) (quoting Baltimore Contractors, Inc. v. Bodinger, 348 U. S. 176, 181 (1955)). Here the District Court’s inaction—not for 42 minutes but for 14 hours and 28 minutes—had the practical effect of refusing an injunction to detainees facing an imminent threat of severe, irreparable harm. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

The Court went on to remand the case to the circuit for a decision on the ordinary bases using the ordinary process to determine how to deliver the required due process to those detainees before leaving on an airplane. The only difference is that the status quo ante was maintained so the irreparable harm wouldn’t preclude the court from offering relief. Josh Blackman’s initial reaction was that the Supreme Court’s reaction was little different than the president’s action.

The past 24 hours have been something of a Rorschach Test for the Supreme Court. In the birthright citizenship case, the Court made clear that in emergencies, the judiciary must retain the power to enter universal injunctions, even if Article III does not otherwise permit such injunctions. And in A.A.R.P. v. Trump, the Court made clear that in emergencies, the court should certify a class without going through Rule 23, and grant an ex parte tro without considering any of the usual TRO factors.

What lesson should lower court judges take away? In cases of perceived emergencies, forget all the rules and make stuff up. When the executive branch takes such actions we call it an autocracy. When the courts do it, they call it the “rule of law.”

Putting aside the enormity of the question begging in the birthright citizen case, given that no decision has yet been rendered, Josh’s point remains. If Trump’s refusal to comply with norms, law, rules or the Constitution is bad, why is the Supreme Court’s eschewing the ordinary, and lengthy, legal process good? There are two fairly obvious reasons for this, together and separately providing a sound rational basis for ignoring orderly process in emergent situations.

First, the Supreme Court is not initiating the problem, but reacting to the circumstances created by Trump’s refusal to abide by normal procedures. Of course, Trump claims its an emergency, and emergencies call for extreme measures, thus justifying his denial of due process to the detainees. By seizing upon the Alien Enemies Act and declaring an invasion while simultaneously ignoring the rest of the law, Trump created the claim of emergency where none existed to justify his actions and make ordinary legal process untenable.

While Trump’s emergency existed only in his own mind, the emergency before the Court was very real, very clear and very “weighty.” More to the point, the Court merely maintained the status quo ante in its emergency procedure. It kept the patient alive since it served no purpose to perform surgery after the patient died.

Second, the orderly process was not a product of constitutional mandate, like due process, but rather a scheme designed to accommodate normal claims in the ordinary course of the law. It was long and tedious, designed to be thorough rather than convenient. But just as the courts created the process, tuned for normal litigation, it had the authority to tweak its process to deal with unforeseen emergencies, such as a president who didn’t care much for process that got in the way of his royal commands.

Notably, had there actually been an emergency, such as an actual invading army crossing our border on behalf of another nation that wanted Texas for its own, the scenario may well have been very different. Crying “emergency” is much like crying “the sky is falling” to justify ignoring the law or orderly process. But the only irreparable harm here, the only emergency at hand, was the shipping off of detainees who were deliberately denied their due process. And the Supreme Court saw the judiciary get played by Trump with the first flights to El Salvador and was not about to let it happen again.