A good or a bad omen of things to come?

A short order entered by the Supreme Court on Thurs., Jan. 9, is likely to be quickly forgotten, but it may be an important harbinger of what is to come when issues concerning Donald Trump are before the justices. In a 5-4 ruling, the Court allowed the sentencing of Trump to proceed on the next day.

What is striking is that the ruling was unquestionably correct under long-established principles, but four justices still dissented and would have protected Trump by halting the state court sentencing proceedings. Should this be read, in a glass-half-full sense, that there was a majority of the Court that stood up to Trump? Or does this, in a glass-half-empty way, suggest that Trump is likely to prevail in the Court?

The context for this was that Trump had been convicted by a jury in New York on 34 felony convictions for falsifying business records. He faced up to a four-year prison sentence. After much delay, Judge Juan M. Merchan set sentencing for Friday, Janu. 10, and indicated in advance that he would likely take the very unusual step of giving an unconditional discharge of Trump's sentence. In plain English, this means that Trump will face absolutely no legal consequences from his convictions - not prison or probation or a fine.

Nonetheless, Trump tried to stop the sentencing proceeding. The New York appellate courts rejected this request and Trump went to the United States Supreme Court. The Court, too, ruled against Trump. The majority was comprised of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Amy Coney Barrett.

The unsigned order from the Court was just a paragraph long. The Court said it was denying Trump's request for two reasons: "First, the alleged evidentiary violations at President-Elect Trump's state-court trial can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal. Second, the burden that sentencing will impose on the President-Elect's responsibilities is relatively insubstantial in light of the trial court's stated intent to impose a sentence of 'unconditional discharge' after a brief virtual hearing."

This ruling is unquestionably right. In Younger v. Harris (1971), the Court held that federal courts cannot enjoin pending state court criminal proceedings. Justice Hugo Black wrote for the Court and stressed that federalism requires deference to state courts and allowing them to decide before there is federal court involvement. The Court stated: "[t]his underlying reason for restraining courts of equity from interfering with criminal prosecutions is reinforced by an even more vital consideration, the notion of 'comity,' that is a proper respect for state functions." Justice Black explained that this idea could best be captured in the phrase "Our Federalism" -- a belief that "the National Government will fare best if the states and their institutions are left free to perform their separate functions in their separate ways."

In subsequent cases, the Court reaffirmed and extended this principle: there a firm bar to federal courts enjoining pending state court criminal prosecutions. This is reinforced by other well-established principles of federal jurisdiction. The "final judgment rule" provides that the Supreme Court generally only will hear a case from a state court when there is a final judgment of the state court system.

For the Supreme Court to enjoin the sentencing proceeding in New York state trial court would have violated both the Younger abstention doctrine and the final judgment rule. And these are not close legal questions.

So it is stunning and disturbing that four justices - Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh - dissented. They did not write an opinion or explain why.

This leads to the disquieting inference that rarely will they rule against Donald Trump. So the question is whether to be encouraged by the order against Trump because Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett joined the liberals to create the majority, or discouraged that even when the law was so clear four justices ruled in favor of Trump.

It is impossible to overstate the importance of the Court as a check on the coming Trump presidency. It says the obvious to point out that Trump has shown little understanding or care about the Constitution. He has suggested so many things of dubious constitutionality - impounding federal funds appropriated by Congress, ending birthright citizenship, using the military to apprehend undocumented immigrants and to quell protests - that it is crucial to focus on whether the Supreme Court will be willing to stop Trump.

But will the judiciary, and especially the Supreme Court, enforce the Constitution against Donald Trump? The Supreme Court has had at best a mixed record of being willing to uphold the Constitution in Trump-related litigation. During Trump's first term as president, in Trump v. Hawaii, in a terrible decision, the Court upheld Trump's Muslim travel ban. In a 5-4 ruling, split along ideological lines, the Court allowed a Trump executive proclamation that banned individuals from designated countries that were predominately Muslim from entering the United States. The Court deferred to Trump's assertion of national security and ignored the overwhelming evidence that the executive action was taken to implement Trump's repeated campaign promise of a Muslim ban.

On July 1, in a decision that belongs in the Hall of Shame of all-time bad Supreme Court rulings, the Court held in Trump v. United States that a president has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for any official acts taken pursuant to the Constitution or a statute. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor explained in her dissent, the Court's decision means that a president would have absolute immunity if he ordered the Navy seals to assassinate a political rival, or took bribes in exchange for pardons, or used the Justice Department to get retribution by prosecuting his political rivals.

Sometimes, though, the Supreme Court stood up to Trump in his first term. The Court ruled that Trump could not rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program without following the procedural requirements of the federal Administrative Procedures Act. Additionally, the Court held that the Trump Department of Commerce acted improperly in adding a question about citizenship to the 2020 census forms. But it also should be remembered that both of these were 5-4 decisions against Trump when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was still on the Court and part of the majority. It is an even more conservative Court today.

The Court's order on Thursday meant that the sentencing went forward on Friday. Trump's sentence was suspended. Judge Merchan had no choice. As he acknowledged, he could not put the President of the United States in prison or on probation. The matter is resolved. But it will be enormously important in the months and years ahead to see if this ruling presages how the Supreme Court will review Trump's actions.