I would argue that in clear cases where the Constitution is directly being violated, that the Supreme Court has no authority to “interpret”.
If the Supreme Court ruled tomorrow that it is not a violation of the Constitution for the President to round up 3-year olds, and have them chopped up with machetes on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, I would not consider that the law of the land.
It would not be the legitimate “law of the land.” However, it would be the effective law of the land. Congress could take on the USSC. It has the right and duty to define what areas the court can rule on. The Congress can actually remove a subject from the purview of the Court. The Court’s right to pass on the Constitutionality of a thing as a final solution is a power the Court arrogated to itself without Constitutional authority.