The SCOTUS order stays (pending its own hearing) *also* the declarations in the final Order.

The criteria which determine whether to stay a preliminary injunction (one of whose purposes is to "preserve the sq" pending final judgment) aren't to be equated with those which go to the discretion to stay the operation of the perfected Order a final judgment.

The D.Ct.'s injunction was a final prohibitory injunction. It wasn't preliminary or interlocutory, was it? Its accessory equitable relief was a declaration of unlawfulness. The stay goes not directly to the injunctive remedy, but to the *Order* of the Court, perfecting its reasons for judgment.

The Executive decision to terminate, or cause the discharge from office of the plaintiff, was, of course, only presumptively regular. The statute conditioning the grounds of lawful termination is valid (not merely presumptively valid).

Strictly, the District Court didn't order "reinstatement" as a "remedy", did it? Its remedy was a declaration of unlawfulness in aid of *prohibitory* injunctive relief.

As did Keats, at around this very season

Lumet - the director - was such an illuminating connoisseur of the human complexities of crime & criminal justice. His "100 Center Street" is by far the best televisual account of such realities.

The general concept of path dependency might, with some concrete & discrete articulation, also generally explain the principles which (eg) condition laws on estoppel, waiver, and acquiescence in "private" law.