I guess you can’t read;
Article III.
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section. 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
OK, call me stupid, or illiterate. I still don’t see the lawful ability of the SC to allow the infringement of a Constitutionally-protected right.
Perhaps you could highlight that.
If they can do it because they say they can do it, then there is effectively no bar to their doing it in other areas.
After all, the first amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
Doesn't mention the Supreme Court, or forbid them from enjoining public observance of Ramadan, should they decide that they can do that as well, does it?
Some things just stay wrong no matter who says they are right, and vice versa.