6 ms·

What is the authority chain usually here. Can a Federal judge block other such executive orders? Is this used often

• shawn-butler 10y ago
  Depends on the President currently in power. The judiciary has no real authority to enforce anything. The Obama administration and the Bush administration before basically made up the law as it went along in some cases. In the US you can find a federal judge to block anything. You just shop around for a circuit with a politically friendly judge and file your suit there. I don't actually think the ACLU has any real standing here, to be honest. You can't sue in US federal court on behalf of non-citizens. They have no standing.
  • khuey 10y ago
    > I don't actually think the ACLU has any real standing here, to be honest. You can't sue in US federal court on behalf of non-citizens. They have no standing. You should refrain from talking about things you clearly know nothing about.
    • shawn-butler 10y ago
      Oh, I know nothing? Moderate your tone. It will be an interesting case for certain but people outside the US can't sue the US government demanding entry. They have no standing. As a citizen, I barely have legal standing to sue for a denial of passport. The affected people already present might have some standing to fight their denial of entry as they are here legally but people here illegally have no such right.
      • adjkant 10y ago
        > "The affected people already present might have some standing to fight their denial of entry as they are here legally but people here illegally have no such right." The biggest effect of this order is people here legally and those who previously had legal access to the US. There are a ton of people with legal grounding here, and this case holds significant precedent for them.
      • noobermin 10y ago
        >people here illegally have no such right. People granted a Green Card are here illegally?
      • Spooky23 10y ago
        Your citizen status has nothing to do with your standing to seek redress from a court.
      • khuey 10y ago
        Non-citizens can absolutely sue the government in Federal court. What do you think Boumediene v Bush was? Nice to see you already walking back your incorrect claims though. Perhaps in the future you will refrain from making blanket and false assertions on the law.
        • shawn-butler 10y ago
          Walking back? Now you are placing words in other people's mouths? The order is to prevent people from specified countries from travelling to the US for a set period of time. Thse citizens of those countries have ZERO, none, less than zero standing to sue in US federal court. Any less clear? The only people who might have standing are those already in US airports with proper visas who are being denied entry because they can show imminent harm and that is their only standing. Boumedine v Bush is about haebaus corpus and unlawful imprisonment and has absolutely nothing to do with the executive order under discussion.
          • rgbrenner 10y ago
            Thse citizens of those countries have ZERO, none, less than zero standing to sue in US federal court. Any less clear? This is clearly wrong. Dual citizens, for example. Can you please clarify your legal qualifications? Or at least provide some references to back up the claims you're making?
            • shawn-butler 10y ago
              Dual citizens do not require visa issuance. The order is about denying visas to foreign nationals and denying status to some refugees and directing the various departments to submit plans, etc on a timeline. The only reference required to back up this claim is the text of the order itself? The NYTimes has the full text for you to read at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-muslim-executive-order-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-musli...
              • deleted 10y ago
      • dvt 10y ago
        > The affected people already present might have some standing to fight their denial of entry as they are here legally but people here illegally have no such right. Even people here illegally might have some standing in court (under international and amnesty laws). You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
        • shawn-butler 10y ago
          Yes, absolutely no idea regarding what has been the policy of the United States for several years: https://www.cbp.gov/travel/international-visitors/visa-waiver-program/visa-waiver-program-improvement-and-terrorist-travel-prevention-act-faq https://www.cbp.gov/travel/international-visitors/visa-waive... Do you think magically that no one was previously denied entry and faced irreparable harm based on this longstanding policy of the previous administration and passed into law by Congress? https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1187 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1187 You will have to state specifically which "international and amnesty laws" you think the US has been violating for the past several years if you wish for me to comment.
    • dingdongding 10y ago
      Can you share some more light?
      • khuey 10y ago
        US citizenship is simply not a requirement to have standing in a federal court.
    • dang 10y ago
      Please don't post empty insults. If someone else's comment is wrong, please explain why, so we all learn. Alternatively, just flag and/or downvote and move on.
      • enraged_camel 10y ago
        I don't think that's fair. The burden is on the original poster to provide evidence for their claim. If they don't do so, then the person calling them out for it is not obligated to educate them.
        • grzm 10y ago
          If this were some debate club, perhaps. I don't think that's the atmosphere that the HN community strives to cultivate.
  • carbocation 10y ago
    These people have standing because the executive order is causing an adverse effect on them directly. Non-citizens may certainly file lawsuits in the United States. I'm no lawyer, but I do think that these are some basics in civics that even I am qualified to comment on.
  • ComputerGuru 10y ago
    > You can't sue in US federal court on behalf of non-citizens. This affects citizens as well, and they can very well sue on their behalf. Employers, spouses, children, etc. of immigrants all have rights that are being infringed here. Also, I'm not sure if that exception also applies to green card holders. They have some extra rights and privileges.
    • shawn-butler 10y ago
      You mean for example a US employer who is being harmed because their potential employee is presently stuck in an airport unable to work violating a valid employment contract, or do you mean a potential employee who is in their home country? I think the first is arguable but there would have to be some actual harm, the second probably less so. It is my understanding the executive order allows DepHomeSec the ability to allow entry on a case-by-case basis so any potential plaintiff already has an avenue to exhaust prior to seeking relief in a federal court.
      • ComputerGuru 10y ago
        The former. Not just "potential" employee, though. Many companies have employees that are out of the country on business, visiting family, etc that cannot get back in.
        • shawn-butler 10y ago
          Probably. It really does seem that the next several years are going to be an extremely litigious period. The order does contain a clause specifying that SecState and DeptHomeSec can admit people from these countries on a case-by-case basis that are in the national interest. So I imagine an employer could be able to use his or her political influence to get their employees return access in this framework. But this administration is anything but predictable.
    • deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  • burkaman 10y ago
    I don't think this is true at all. First example I found: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/403/365.html http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/403/365.html A state restriction on welfare benefits for legal aliens violated the 14th amendment.
  • rgbrenner 10y ago
    You can't sue in US federal court on behalf of non-citizens. They have no standing. This is so obviously wrong, I'm going to go out on a limb and say you're not a lawyer and have never even attended law school.
    • shawn-butler 10y ago
      You are taking the sentence out of context and I'm not sure it would be worth the downvotes to provide it, but sure, why not. People seem to be assuming (probably because of the poor media coverage and inherent bias) that the ACLU has obtained an injunction on the order preventing entry into in the US by foreign nationals from the countries listed. That really doesn't seem to be the case. Because the citizens of those nations have no standing in her court. For example, the ACLU can not sue in federal court on behalf of Jane Doe of Tehran with whom the US has no treaty obligation who was going to travel to the US next month. She issued an injunction on behalf of a limited class of people (specifically those already in the US being detained with legal visas, etc) who do have standing in her court because they are are suffering (what she has decided to be irreparable) harm as a result of the order. So, I hope that distinction is now clear, and also wish you a safe return from your limb.
  • pdabbadabba 10y ago
    Lawyer here. Almost everything in this post is incorrect. > Depends on the President currently in power. The judiciary has no real authority to enforce anything. The Obama administration and the Bush administration before basically made up the law as it went along in some cases. Nope. Both had executive orders blocked by the judiciary. > I don't actually think the ACLU has any real standing here, to be honest. ACLU is not the plaintiff. They are merely representing the plaintiff. > You can't sue in US federal court on behalf of non-citizens. Yes you can. Happens all the time. [Edit: I suppose, technically, you can't sue 'on behalf of' non-citizens. But that's a total red herring. The non-citizens can sue on their own behalf, as happened here.] > They have no standing. This is inaccurate, and misunderstands concept of legal standing. 'Standing,' as the term is used in U.S. law, essentially refers to whether the plaintiff is actually suffering an injury, caused by the challenged conduct, that the court can address through a lawsuit. Under the proper use of the term, of course someone has standing to challenge their own detention. (There are complexities about the scope of the substantive rights of citizens and non citizens, but this has little to do with standing.) Edit: I forgot one! > In the US you can find a federal judge to block anything. You just shop around for a circuit with a politically friendly judge and file your suit there. Again. No. You don't get to choose your circuit--you have to sue in a circuit (district, actually) that has jurisdiction. In this case, there really was only one choice: the Eastern District of New York. And when you sue, you don't get to pick your judge. They're assigned at random.
    • rdtsc 10y ago
      What is the relationship here with the idea of Sovereign Immunity. Which I (quite possibly wrongly) understand that you can't sue the US government ... unless it allows itself to be sued. Does this mean in his matter the US government has allowed itself to be sued. And then how would it go about disallowing itself to be sued. Can it decide tomorrow to say "no, can't sue us anymore regarding immigration". I didn't find immigration here for example. Maybe I missed it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_Unit...
      • pdabbadabba 10y ago
• seanmcdirmid 10y ago
  The USA has clear separation and balance of powers, and the judiciary gets to rule on matters of law and constitution interpretation, so ya. It's like Rock Paper Scissors.