The Supreme Court has been in session only for a little over a month, but this term is expected to be a barn burner, with important and controversial cases front-loading the docket. Moreover, Donald Trump-appointed Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh are already facing serious scrutiny from conservatives regarding their approach in recent cases.

The first is John Does 1-3 v. Mills, in which a group of Maine medical professionals are challenging the state’s mandate that all public healthcare workers be vaccinated against COVID-19. Their objection is based on their religious convictions. Plaintiffs sought emergency relief to keep their jobs while the case makes its way through the courts, but Barrett and Kavanaugh joined Chief Justice John Roberts and the Court’s leftist bloc in rejecting the emergency plea.

The Supreme Court is not required to explain why it refuses to hear a case or why it may pass on an emergency injunction, but one possible reason for Barrett and Kavanaugh’s action here may be concerns over abuse of the Court’s emergency docket. When litigants in a case believe that the impact of the law being litigated may cause immediate and irreparable harm, they sometimes choose to leapfrog lower court appellate review and go straight to the Supreme Court. This trend of requesting emergency judicial review has risen sharply in recent years, as the High Court has become more politicized and the Left has attempted to weaponize American jurisprudence as an end run around our federalist system.

Barrett has voiced concern about this in the past, stating that in such cases the Supreme Court is required to make a motion or provide a “preview” of how they might decide on a case without full judicial review. This can shortchange the litigants’ arguments and make the Supreme Court appear to be an ideological rubber stamp for overzealous attorneys who simply don’t have the patience to let the judicial system do its work.

This prompts the question of whether John Does 1-3 v. Mills should be the case in which Barrett makes her point. The case will still be heard and, if it’s not settled to the satisfaction of all concerned, it may end up before the justices at some point in the future anyway. But the short-term result of this action will be these healthcare workers either being vaccinated against their wishes or losing their jobs. “Specifically,” writes National Review’s Andrew McCarthy, their objection is “because fetal tissue from terminated pregnancies was used in developing the approved vaccines.” Therefore, “the plaintiffs see immunization as an implicit endorsement of abortion, in violation of their religious beliefs.”

But how many are really claiming a moral or religious exemption and how many are using that as a convenient excuse? There is certainly a case to be made that individuals should be allowed to make medical decisions independently in conjunction with their healthcare provider, not a government official with a political mandate. But that’s not what this case is about, and it must be litigated on its own merits.

There is a similarly complex issue surrounding two cases challenging the Texas Heartbeat Act. Signed into law earlier this year, the Heartbeat Act prohibits abortion in all but specific medical cases after the detection of a fetal heartbeat, usually six weeks. The law is unique in that it has a novel built-in self-defense mechanism to protect itself against the myriad legal challenges it was sure to receive from abortion advocates. State officials are granted sovereign immunity against anyone bringing suit, and only private citizens may bring civil enforcement action against someone who performs an abortion in violation of the law. Therefore, an abortion provider can claim defense against the law only if a private person sues, then the provider must raise a contrary argument against the law’s constitutionality.

The Supreme Court heard arguments in two cases this week related to the law. Plaintiffs in Whole Women’s Health v. Jackson question whether Texas can insulate its law from federal judicial review by delegating enforcement to the public. The Biden administration is challenging the law’s constitutionality in United States v. Texas. Texas argues that the enforcement mechanism is meant only to protect the law from being blocked before it even hits the books. And does the federal government have the right to intrude in state legislative business solely on the belief that a law might be unconstitutional? Justice Neil Gorsuch was quick to point out that never “in the history of the United States” has there been such an expansive injunction by the federal government.

There is, however, Ex Parte Young, a 1908 case in which the Supreme Court allowed a suit against state officials to go forward in federal court when the state acted contrary to federal law or the Constitution.

Barrett and Kavanaugh again joined Roberts and the leftists in allowing both cases to go forward, with Kavanaugh suggesting that the Young principles could be demonstrated in the Texas cases. Barrett expressed concern that the abortion clinics were not being given a fair chance to have their case heard in court and might side with them in this instance.

It may be too early to express buyer’s remorse over Kavanaugh and Barrett. These cases have a way to go before they are decided, and neither is likely to be the last word on their respective issues. Instead, we should take comfort in the fact that both these justices have a sincere respect for the law, and that they hold it above politics and public opinion, which is the way things are supposed to be when one is a justice of the United States Supreme Court.