25 ms·
US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders
- computerthings 1y ago[dead]
- wdb 1y agoSounds like you now need to start lawsuits in every state?
- mannyv 1y agoThey need to do two things: 1. File a suit in every circuit 2. Request an injunction type that's more appropriate Given the number of babies being born every day it shouldn't be hard to do. The thing is, the US doesn't issue citizenship papers. So I suppose they need to apply for an SSN and get denied (since the baby is a non-citizen), which will show immediate harm. It also begs the question: if that baby is illegal can it be deported?
- bluecalm 1y agoMy understanding is that the administration's position is that at least one of the parents needs to be a citizen or a legal resident. If that's the case the answer to your question is: yes - together with the parents.
- PleasureBot 1y agoI suppose the recourse the Supreme Court is offering is that the baby (or more likely the parents) can sue when the citizenship is denied. At which point I'd just expect ICE to arrest and deport them when they show up to court for their lawsuit.
- dontlikeyoueith 1y agoAnd if the parents are on valid non-resident visas? Suddenly the child has no status? Moreover, there is literally no mechanism to prove that your parents are citizens. Millions of citizens will be at the whim of whatever racist thug decides to hurt them that day. Welcome to Fascist America.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago[flagged]
- themaninthedark 1y agoI would assume that the child would be registered with the embassy that the parents are citizens of and there would be an application for a non-resident visa that would be fast tracked. Greenland, Finland, Norway and Sweden all have no concept of Jus Soli and as far as I know, kids born to non-residents aren't being deported from the hospital. >Moreover, there is literally no mechanism to prove that your parents are citizens. I would think a birth certificate would work....
- 20after4 1y ago> I would think a birth certificate would work Without birthright citizenship, a birth certificate no longer implies citizenship.
- slater 1y ago>I would think a birth certificate would work.... Remember when the whole entirety of the US right-wing lost their goddamned minds for a year or so re: a sitting president's birth certificate?
- paulryanrogers 1y agoWell, having a POC as president was a pretty shocking circumstance in their minds. A means to quickly deport him was too exciting to overlook.
- 1y ago
- EasyMark 1y agobut the amendment doesn't say that, it's a very simple Amendment at its heart.
- treetalker 1y agoOne upshot may be that the law will be drastically different in the several circuits and (unless SCOTUS plans to handle everything on the emergency docket — as it did here) it will stay that way so long as SCOTUS lets the issues percolate through them (using them as laboratories, as Justice O'Connor was fond of saying).
- crooked-v 1y ago> and get denied The thing here is that instead of officially denying it, the administration will just "coincidentally" slow-walk everything indefinitely, then illegally exile the baby to Sudan when ICE notices they don't have proof of citizenship.
- mannyv 1y ago[flagged]
- dragonwriter 1y ago> Sounds like you now need to start lawsuits in every state? Every federal judicial district (that's one per state in smaller states, but more in larger states—California has four.)
- buckle8017 1y agoDoesn't California have two? North and South?
- dragonwriter 1y agoNorthern, Southern, Eastern, and Central. https://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/cmecf-e-filing/jurisdiction-and-venue/ https://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/cmecf-e-fili...
- buckle8017 1y agoDid that change recently, id swear there was only two options on.
- dragonwriter 1y agoNot that recently; the change from 2 to 4 was in 1966. https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/about-federal-judges/authorized-judgeships/chronological-history-authorized-judgeships-district-courts#ca https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/about-federal-...
- jimt1234 1y agoWell, I'm confident the number will go back to 2 by the end of this current presidential term.
- cmurf 1y agoThere's no legal reasoning. If there's a D president again, this gets reversed early on. Nationwide injunctions were saught and used by (self-proclaimed) conservatives to slow down and stop Biden immigration policies.
- 15155 1y ago> this gets reversed early on. Through what legal avenue?
- bamboozled 1y agoThat’s true, they have no power of the Supreme Court like the Rs do…oops
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- mannyv 1y agoYou need to actually read the decision. There's plenty of legal reasoning. You may not agree with it, but your opinion is irrelevant. One thing they didn't talk about was structural: the court system is split up into X circuits, and each circuit is independent. Normally each circuit uses rulings from other circuits as a basis for its judgements, but circuits are pretty independent from each other. The Supremes weigh in when the circuits conflicted with each other. The national injunctions issued by the lower court allowed the lowest level court to have more authority than an appeals court. An appellate court's decision was only binding on its circuit. Why would a lower court have more authority than an appeals court? That makes no sense. That's outside of all the reasoning the court used to stop this practice. That said, if an affected individual brought a suit the may be able to get an injunction, since the court ruled that universal injunctions were inappropriate.
- vharuck 1y ago>Why would a lower court have more authority than an appeals court? That makes no sense. An appellate court considers the decisions of the courts below it, so it makes sense its actions would be restricted to those courts. What makes no sense is the newly possible situation in which an action violates the U.S. Constitution in one district but not another.
- nine_zeros 1y agoNow, the administration will keep doing illegal things, and every individual affected will have to file lawsuits to invalidate the illegal thing - after the damage is already done - because nothing is preventing the government from doing illegal things.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- russdill 1y agoI don't think this applies to just the president.
- paulryanrogers 1y agoNot everyone can sign (often unconstitutional) EO's which will be enforced at gun point, except against those with the means to take the executive to court.
- yieldcrv 1y agoJudges were using injunctions to avoid putting their name behind a ruling. They can absolutely still strike down a law or executive branch policy. This forces judges to actually do their job., instead of a nationwide injunction while they decide if they want to do their job later. It doesn’t actually alter some fabric of our democracy or checks and balances, because the judges had already gone beyond what the constitution and congress prescribed. Every issue that any partisan has with this country is because one branch isn’t doing their job. The disruptive aspect of this - with concern to the birthright case that hasnt been ruled on yet - is just another example of this. Judges not doing their job.
- mistrial9 1y agothis seems more emphatic than convincing.. Can you rewrite this so that it addresses the legal principles at hand, instead of repeating "judges dont do their jobs" ?
- yieldcrv 1y ago[flagged]
- wtfwhateven 1y agoIt's not remotely accurate and all it does is demonstrate you have no understanding on how any of it works. See the other replies for an explanation. Oddly (and tellingly) you ignored them.
- wtfwhateven 1y agoIt has zero convincing arguments. It describes itself as a "technofeudalist", anything it says should be immediately discarded. It proudly hates the constitution and freedom. Lying about the very mechanisms meant to stop tyrants (something it is opposed to) is simply a furtherance of its treasonous and anti-American agenda.
- Supermancho 1y ago> Every issue that any partisan has with this country is because one branch isn’t doing their job. It's impractical to rule on a subject before allowing parties to formulate coherent prepared arguments. Ruling on circumstantial evidence is a temporary stop, leaving the ruling up to an appellate which will invalidate it due to it being founded on circumstantial evidence. The injunctions were the practical way to allows all parties to formulate their case and make a legal reasoning for a ruling. Written law has to be incremental and narrow for interpretation. Otherwise it's an interpretive dance free for all in every case. You have repeatedly implied that the jobs of Judges are something other than what you they are. Ofc you don't think they are doing what you think they should be. That's inconsequential.
- drdaeman 1y agohttps://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf Justice Sotomayor dissents: > Instead, the Government says, it should be able to apply the Citizenship Order (whose legality it does not defend) to everyone except the plaintiffs who filed this lawsuit. If that’s the case, I’m curious if it could be fixed with a class action, so everyone (or everyone born in the US) is a plaintiff? If that’s legally a thing.
- treetalker 1y agoIt may not be surprising to learn that over the past several decades conservative Congresses (through the so-called Class Action Fairness Act and its ilk) and Supreme Court decisions have all but eliminated class actions.
- pas 1y agohow did CAFA (and these other acts) affect class actions? why this led to their elimination?
- bluecalm 1y agoI don't think class action lawsuit is needed here. It's enough for one case to get to SCOTUS and then we will hear their opinion about how 14th amendment should be interpreted. It will be an interesting case I think both 4-5 against and 5-4 in favor of changing the interpretation is possible (with 3-6 and 6-3 less likely outcomes).
- axus 1y agoI'm worried about the trend of civil rights going unprotected until after a Supreme Court ruling.
- throwaway48476 1y agoThat's what laws are for. Courts aren't supposed to write them.
- chriscrisby 1y agoIt’s ridiculous that any President (whether he’s from your favorite team or not) has to appease 300+ judges is ridiculous. There will always be biased judges who will only rule to obstruct.
- exe34 1y ago[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- somanyphotons 1y ago> has to appease 300+ judges is ridiculous They don't, they appeal straight up to the 9 judges that they actually have to appease
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- croes 1y agoSo why didn’t it happen to such extent before?
- monocularvision 1y agoIt absolutely did. The Biden administration was hit with so many nationwide injunctions that they also requested that the SC limit them.
- ceejayoz 1y agoLimiting and doing away with them aren't the same thing. I'd love to see higher requirements for issuing them, and an expedited appeals process to review them. I'd like to see protections against judge shopping (as endorsed by both Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer: https://www.texastribune.org/2024/04/11/judge-shopping-texas-amarillo-kasmaryk-senate/ https://www.texastribune.org/2024/04/11/judge-shopping-texas...) We know SCOTUS can move very fast when they feel like it.
- leotravis10 1y ago[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- Nevermark 1y agoUnfortunately, the US seems to be rapidly sliding into a combination of effectively/mostly one-party rule, oligarchy, corporatocracy, and to a lesser but visible extent, theocracy. With the US Supreme Court strongly tilted toward all four, its an extremely difficult hole to climb out of. I don't see a dictatorship (anytime soon). Not out of any abundance of optimism, but simply that all four of those constituencies and the Supreme Court's dominant wing itself, are highly aligned with each other, and would all lose out if it goes that far.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- standardUser 1y agoThis is essentially an ad hoc Constitutional Convention being carried out by 6 people, 3 of whom were hand-picked by the sitting president and another of whom is arguably the most corrupt Supreme Court Justice in our history. Nothing is off the table. Anyone who thinks the Constitution can protect them should think again.
- calculatte 1y ago[flagged]
- kergonath 1y agoNo. It’s better to have a court that does its job. Reasonable people can accept a decision even if they disagree if the reasoning is not solid than “lol we can so suck it up”. And yes, anything close to a majority nominated by the sitting president is a constitutional crisis, in a regime where one is supposed to check the other.
- calculatte 1y ago[flagged]
- scarface_74 1y agoBirthright citizenship is literally in the Constitution
- perching_aix 1y agoTo clarify, do you think you're uniquely better at this than most / the folks here, or is that not an intended implication? Do you further think this phenomena is specific to here, or was that not an intended implication? Just trying to figure out what your scope is.
- kergonath 1y agoYou have no idea, you don’t know me and that was not the point I was making.
- redczar 1y agoAccording to Justice Barrett a child born tomorrow in one district in the United States will not have U.S. citizenship but a child born in another one will. Will ICE deport the “noncitizens” born in one district while being prevented from doing so in districts that happen to have a judge that issues an injunction? This ruling is idiotic even if you are generally opposed to nationwide injunctions. Birthright citizenship is a fundamental and clear cut right. Any attempts to overturn that must meet a high burden of justification. Temporarily suspending such attempts until the matter can firmly be decided causes the least amount of harm and should be allowed.
- mannyv 1y ago[flagged]
- czbot 1y agoBefore today’s ruling nationwide injunctions were granted. Not sure how you can now claim “that’s how the court system works” when nationwide injunctions were fine before today’s ruling. A President can now issue blatantly unconstitutional executive orders and the burden for obtaining relief will rest on each individual person (or small class of people). Prior to today rules/laws that caused harm could be temporarily prevented from being enforced while the matter is litigated. Now parties that will be harmed are much more likely to be harmed before the matter is resolved. This is a sad state of affairs. If the next President issues an order confiscating guns from people the champions of today’s ruling will want nationwide relief while the matter is litigated. If someone is going to be deported they can file a case and stop the deportation. And you accuse OP of not paying attention!
- eschaton 1y agoAlso, just because you did pay attention doesn’t mean it’s not idiotic. The patchwork of interpretations and requirement to sue is a guarantee of unequal treatment under the law, which is exactly what autocrats want.
- pjc50 1y agoQuite difficult to file a lawsuit from a prison in El Salvador.
- sega_sai 1y agoInteresting paragraph from dissenting opinion: "No right is safe in the new legal regime the court creates. Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship. The majority holds that, absent cumbersome class-action litigation, courts cannot completely enjoin even such plainly unlawful policies unless doing so is necessary to afford the formal parties complete relief. That holding renders constitutional guarantees meaningful in name only for any individuals who are not parties to a lawsuit. Because I will not be complicit in so grave an attack on our system of law, I dissent."
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- tiahura 1y ago[flagged]
- scarface_74 1y agoThe President is literally taking away citizenship. What can be more fundamental than that?
- ljsprague 1y ago[flagged]
- esseph 1y agoHold up. If you're born here And I'm born here .... ?????????? It's right there in the fucking Constitution!
- EasyMark 1y agoThat's what I'm saying, it's one of the most simple Amendments in terms of understandability, yet people will completely ignore that somehow. If the 14th can be loop-holed, we might as well chuck all copies of the constitution in the Potomac and just declare Trump dictator
- rawgabbit 1y agoWhat about children born to those on work Visas such as H1B. Does this apply to them?
- stevenwoo 1y agoCitizen or immigration status does not matter, it depends if they are in a state with the case being litigated in federal court or if they live one of the twenty eight states that did not join the case. The Trump admin can make up whatever rule they want for the other twenty eight states. The Supreme Court just narrowed the specifity of injunctions to solely the litigants which opens up a huge can of worms in American legal system.
- wobblyasp 1y ago[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- insane_dreamer 1y agoFederal judges' can't block EOs indefinitely. The WH can appeal to a circuit court, and so on up to the Supreme Court. But it does prevent the Admin from implementing an unconstitutional EO while they wait to be challenged in all states/districts. I'm not particularly happy about nationwide injunctions, but this is much worse if you have a president who is not shy to "break the law now and fight it in court later". And now that Trump has shown the way, you can be sure future presidents will follow. Another terrible outcome is that you then have federal orders applied differently from state to state (or more accurately, federal district to district). If you're in Nevada you won't get citizenship, but in Oregon you will. This is right up there with the Presidential Immunity in terms of terrible decisions by this SCOTUS.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- peddling-brink 1y agoThis is up there with Citizens United. This road is dark.
- Tadpole9181 1y ago> If you're in Nevada you won't get citizenship, but in Oregon you will. They're 100% coming for Obergfell and it's clear now how. They'll arrest a legal US citizen who has naturalized citizenship from illegal parents, born in a state that received an injunction but residing in a state that has not. The representative of that person will say that they by being a citizen in the other state, they must be respected as a citizen in the other. They will cite Obergfell. The SCOTUS will revoke their ruling on Obergfell and say, no, you are not a citizen just because there's an injunction in that other state. The astute reader may notice that this is literally a replay of Dread Scott.
- IAmGraydon 1y agoSorry just to clarify - you think they are going to cite and overturn a case about the legalization of same-sex marriage in their witch hunt of illegal immigrants?
- jmyeet 1y agoDecisions by courts are often enjoined based on a balancing test as well as the likelihood that the issue will succeed or not. So, deporting people to a third-country (another decision SCOTUS allowed this term) has a simple balancing test: stay here and be fine or possibly deport a Chinese citizen to El Salvador, which could cause incredible harm. So even ignoring th elikelihood of how the issue is decided, the balancing test favors enjoining third-party deportation. So in this case, we had a universal injunction against an executive order removing birthright citizenship. This fails on two fronts: 1. As justices noted, it's highly unlikely that the order will be held up as constitutional. There is case law on this. The language of the 14th amendment is clear. The exact issue was discussed at the time. This has no hope in a non-corrupt court of succeeding. 2. Given other decisions, bona fide US citizens could be deported to CECOT and detained indefinitely with no due process. So it should be stayed because of the potential harm. What SCOTUS did today was say the order revoking birthright citizenship was unlikely to succeed but it allows the administration to proceed anyway while hte issue is litigated in the courts, which could take years. That's how corrupt this court is. People have been fed this propaganda that Supreme Court justices are apolitical legal scholars who come down from their tower to issue judgements and keep things in check. It couldn't be further from the truth. Supreme Court justices are political appointees that dress up their political positions in legalese. Example 1: this court invented the "major questions doctrine" whereby the court decides a matter is large enough that the court gets to override both the administrative and legislative branches. Example 2: they also invented the "historical traditions doctrine", which is used selectively. For example, abortion was completely legal 200+ years ago. Ben Franklin even published at-home instructions on how to perform an abortion [1]. Example 3: in the wake of the Civil War there was huge violence not from the freed slaves but from white people towards former slaves, most notably with the Colfax massacre. The Supreme Court went on a white supremacist tear during Reconstruction, notably gutting the federal government's ability to prosecute hate crimes like Colfax [2]. Example 4: The Tiney court in the 1850s made what is perhaps one of the worst decisions ever made (ie Dred Scott), arguing from a legal and constitutional perspective that black people weren't "people". Example 5: the Roberts court decided that moeny equals speech, gutting any legislation around campaign spending, which is a big part of how we got here. Example 6: the presidential immunity decision will go down in history as one of the 10 or even 5 worst decisions ever made. It completely invented far-reaching immunity that essentially made the president a king, in a country that was founded on the very idea of rejecting monarchs. Example 7: in 1984, the Supreme Court decided that in any areas of ambiguity in legislation, trial courts should defer to the agency empowered by Congress to enforce that legislation. This is the so-called "Chevron deference". More than 40 years passed through 7 presidents (4 Republican and 3 Democrat) where both parties at different times controlled Congress. Congress declined to legislate away Chevron deference despite having ample opportunity to do so. Moreso, they intentionally wrote legislation with Chevron deference in mind yet this court decided to reverse Chevron. Yet on other cases, the court has deferred to Congress's inaction as intent. Fun fact: Chevron v Natural Resources Defense Council was previously known as Natural Resources Defense Council v. Gorsuch [3]. That's not a coincidence. The suit involved Reagan's head of dthe EPA, Anna Gorsuch, mother of current Supreme Court justice Neil Gorsuch, who was humiliated and ultimately fired from the EPA while trying to destroy it from within. [1]: https://www.npr.org/2022/05/18/1099542962/abortion-ben-franklin-roe-wade-supreme-court-leak https://www.npr.org/2022/05/18/1099542962/abortion-ben-frank... [2]: https://www.theroot.com/what-was-the-colfax-massacre-1790897517 https://www.theroot.com/what-was-the-colfax-massacre-1790897... [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Resources_Defense_Council https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Resources_Defense_Coun...
- acoustics 1y agoComparatively, how vulnerable is America to an executive gone wild compared to its peer countries? The US has a three-tiered judiciary that moves slowly, Congress has a very high threshold for impeachment and removal (and a slow process), and the order of succession is basically locked in for four years. The people are not easily moved to action, and it's doubtful how much they could realistically accomplish. Universal injunctions were a Band-Aid fix, one of the very few avenues our system permitted for there to be any rapid institutional response to illegal and immediately harmful policy. But that is no more. As an exercise, what happens if a president issues a "throw enemies in the woodchipper" executive order? How many hours or days would it take the other branches of government to legally nullify the order? (What they can do in practice is another question.) It's an extreme example, but a future admin could use the current admin's reasoning to unilaterally confiscate guns and force you to be a plaintiff in federal court to get relief.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- throwaway48476 1y agoThe three branch system allows any two to gang up on the third. Parliamentary systems don't have any checks like this and trend towards unitary authoritarians.
- LorenPechtel 1y agoNo. The three branch system allows any two to gang up legally against the third. But, as we are seeing, all the actual power relies with the executive. They can simply ignore the actions of the other two.
- pjc50 1y agoWhat actually happened is that all four branches were held by Republicans, so none of them is going to hold any of the others accountable.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- yongjik 1y ago[flagged]
- mannyv 1y ago[flagged]
- dang 1y agoPlease don't cross into personal attack. It only makes everything worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- AngryData 1y agoSo what do you want 2A supporters to do exactly? Start shooting government officials? Because I guarantee you would call them nut job terrorists if they did.
- yongjik 1y agoYeah it's as if having your citizens armed is a bad idea, because there's very little chance it could be actually useful in a real life scenario while the society slowly slides into tyranny.
- AngryData 1y agoDo you think if the US populous was zero threat at all that we wouldn't be in an even worse place right now? How can you look at what the government is doing right now in the largest police state to ever exist and be like "Nah, we shouldn't be armed at all."
- yongjik 1y agoWhat I'm trying to say is: you say zero threat is bad, but an armed populace is actually worse than that. It's a potential asset to a wannabe dictator. There are very few ways an armed populace can stop a dictator (and not become an unmitigated disaster for everybody). There are a ton of ways they can start chaos - which can be a great opportunity for wannabe dictators. And that's not considering the case when these armed citizens want to be the dictator's death squad in the first place.
- paulvnickerson 1y agoThis had to happen. The state of affairs prior to this ruling is that any of 700 district judges could unilaterally block the president from exercising his authority under the constitution pending a review, including matters of national security, based on their own subjective politics. It broke the proper functioning of the government. This restores a proper functioning balance of powers.
- jayd16 1y ago> based on their own subjective politics. You mean like under their own judgement?
- pjc50 1y agoYou're just stating that the President, and his federal government, should be above the rule of law again.
- stefan_ 1y agoThats why the government can just skip ahead and call the Supreme Court, and then the Supreme Court lifts it because apparently being unable to do illegal things is Irreparable Harm (actually makes a mockery of the concept of course). In the meantime, when I sue John Doe and get an injunction, they are enjoined from their conduct everywhere; but when I sue the government, it should only apply to me? Makes no sense.
- vkou 1y agoThe state of affairs is that: 1. The executive is doing something illegal to hundreds of thousands of people. 2. Dozens and hundreds of people sue them. 3. The executive loses in court. 4. The executive does not appeal to the supreme court the cases it lost. 5. Thus, no binding precedent that stops the illegal action in #1 is set. This is actual lawless lunacy, and this enshrines it as SOP going forward. Is this the country you want to live in? Do you think this is how it should run? Here's a wild idea. If the executive disagrees with the federal courts on the merits of whether or not its decisions are illegal, it can appeal up to SCOTUS, and win a case on its merits. It can't do that because even under this SCOTUS, their case has no merits. > exercising his authority under the constitution pending a review That is the entire bloody point of checks and balances. You are cheer-leading the complete destruction of them. The government, when challenged on the legality of what its doing, needs to win their case in court, because the courts are the final arbiters of written law.
- dayofthedaleks 1y agoThis is functionally equivalent to the Enabling Act of 1933. [0] [0] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933
- blurbleblurble 1y agoOnly eerily not legislated
- tshaddox 1y agoOur legislature willingly gave up its power quite a while ago.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- blackqueeriroh 1y agoIncorrect, one party in the legislature gave up its power
- 827a 1y ago[flagged]
- roenxi 1y agoCan you outline the argument as to how? It seems quite different according to the article. The courts still assert supremacy when it comes to interpreting and vetting the law, and Trump isn't allowed to overrule the legislature's lawmaking powers.
- bravesoul2 1y agoAlso it is not a constitutional change.
- boroboro4 1y agoIt creates imbalance of power: the executive can keep making orders which are clearly unlawful, but because of this they are still gonna be applied to most of the people (apart from ones who can afford going to court) until SC will reach the orders on merits meaning not soon. Meaning by that time executive can make new orders. I think you’ll see this playing out very soon.
- acoustics 1y agoThe majority seems too trusting that the government will appeal its losses. Strategically, the government could enact a policy affecting a million people, be sued, lose, provide relief to the named plaintiffs, and then not appeal the decision. The upper courts never get the opportunity to make binding precedent, the lower courts do not get to extend relief to non-plaintiffs, and the government gets to enforce its illegal policies on the vast majority of people who did not (likely could not) sue.
- DarknessFalls 1y agoThis administration does not really care about the rule of law. It cares to some degree about public perception. The timing of this ruling is about revoking birthright citizenship, which is a huge Constitutional trampling. There were opportunities four years ago for the SC to step in and they refused to intercede. For example, why didn't they rule in favor of executive authority when President Biden he tried to forgive student loan debt and a Federal Judge in Texas deemed it "unlawful"? Now we get to see Americans have their legitimacy removed so they can be sent to "Alligator Alcatraz", the new prison being built just for them in the Everglades.
- mjburgess 1y ago[flagged]
- codeguro 1y ago>why didn't they rule in favor of executive authority when President Biden he tried to forgive student loan debt and a Federal Judge in Texas deemed it "unlawful"? Because it is unlawful. Student loan forgiveness is not an entitlement. College isn’t an entitlement. These are the facts. Moreover, college is a privilege, and it’s a choice, and at its core it is an investment into your future. Having the government forgive it implies the taxpayer will pay for it. That means that essentially people who chose _not_ to go to college, by their own choice or due to their own circumstances, now have to pay for the investments of the people who chose to go. College educated people tend to make much more money too, so in essence you’ll literally be taking money from the less privileged and giving it to the more/rich. And this would be done by force. In what way would that be lawful? Why would others have to pay for your personal investments? You took out a loan, you pay it off. Leave everyone else out of it.
- mjburgess 1y ago[flagged]
- malcolmgreaves 1y ago[flagged]
- majormajor 1y ago>and the supreme court itself reserves the right to make universal injunctions on iterim orders/policies until they decide the case on a full hearing (at which time they can invalide the law/order) Doesn't that require an appeal? Or are you saying they'd go put a policy or law on hold even if there wasn't an open case after a lower judge ruled against them and the government chose not to appeal so as to not risk losing more broadly. Seems like the takeaway here for any would-be executive-overreachers is "lose a couple cases affecting a handful of plaintiffs and ignore those loses." IIRC the general trend for getting a class certified for a class action is also in the "make it harder to do" direction.
- mjburgess 1y agoNot necessarily, though I'd guess what Kavanaugh imagines is that many states will obtain state-wide injunctions that make executing an order like this practically impossible (indeed, that is what the SC has said should happen next) -- and, imv, he believes there is a nation-wide class in-play and this will go to a nation-wide class action. At which time the executive will be entirely boxed in. Given this, the executive has to ask the SC to stay some of these, or grant cert., or there's practically no EO in play. It's important to remember here that states are relevant parties to these suits against the federal government, and there are enough of them to enjoin any practical excerise of executive action. The SC has basically asserted that only it will, temporarily or permanently, review those cases where there is a federal-level split on these issues requiring a universal solution. I have a feeling he's also hinting that the SC will, in light of this, look at how it handles temporary orders -- he has, at least said, it is now obligated to be very proactive in these areas and take on all such temporary requests to enjoin the executive There's also the APA question, I don't fully understand judicial review in these cases -- but iirc, the APA grants courts to order the executive to stop (or to take) action on such policies. So when the EO has a "policy implementation" people can bring suits under the APA to enjoin, which is equivalent to a universal injunction.
- cryptodan 1y agoThis is far overdue. The lower courts arent the scotus.
- gigatexal 1y agoIt’s Trump’s world we are just living in it (as NPCs).
- guywithahat 1y agoShouldn’t it say US Supreme Court affirms constitutional powers?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- siliconc0w 1y agoIt's wild that that the supreme court can just avoid ruling on the actual patently illegal and unconstitutional action that this administration is taking and instead solely focus on a procedural mechanism that is being used to stop that illegal action. Oh but the high court of chancery in england! They didn't have them, so we can't either! Never mind that is 2025, we're a different nation, the federal government has a lot more power, and we have these injunctions for all of Biden's term and they had plenty of opportunity to stop them but said nothing when it was for protecting gun rights or denying women's healthcare.
- jm20 1y ago[flagged]
- wnevets 1y ago> Why is this on the front page of hacker news? It seems to have very little to do with technology. Weird that you didn't share this sentiment when commenting about terrible the US educational system is.
- jm20 1y agoStudent visas tied into tech hiring, so it's at least tangentially related. But I agree, that should've probably been scrubbed as well. Not sure why I'm being downvoted. It's literally in the guidelines: Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Trump's court battles are hardly a new interesting phenomenon.
- wnevets 1y ago> Student visas tied into tech hiring, so it's at least tangentially related. So is birthright citizenship
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- hayst4ck 1y agoBy accepting the frame that it is federal judges and not the law that is blocking trump, it means that we are analyzing based on a frame of Trump vs Judges rather than Trump vs Law. If you accept that framing, you accept many of that frames implications without even consciously processing them. This is one of the ways that consent is manufactured. This ruling is stating that federal judges cannot rule that the law is blocking Trump. By accepting and adopting the frame that it is Trump vs Judges you implicitly accept that the law itself is a weapon rather than a boundary. It argues that the law is subjective, based on the judge ruling, rather than objective. It argues that there is no objective truth. To say it is judges and not the law that stops trump is to say that judges are agents of themselves and not agents of the law. Agreeing that it is Judges vs Trump is implicitly agreeing that the law is arbitrary based on the judge ruling. Arbitrary government is authoritarian government. The court’s decision to permit the executive to violate the constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law,” Jackson wrote. “Given the critical role of the judiciary in maintaining the rule of law … it is odd, to say the least, that the court would grant the executive’s wish to be freed from the constraints of law by prohibiting district courts from ordering complete compliance with the constitution. This feels about as grim as the Citizens United dissent, which has been proven more and more true every day: A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold.
- grapesodaaaaa 1y agoTo some extent, laws are enforced and interpreted subjectively. The famous quote “give me the man and I will give you the case against him.” Comes to mind. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Give_me_the_man_and_I_will_give_you_the_case_against_him https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Give_me_the_man_and_I_will_g... Legal settings (at least in the US), have always favored the wealthy who can find an army of lawyers to find loopholes. I don’t agree with this, and hopefully what is currently happening raises awareness. For example, the Patriot act post-9/11 famously gave law enforcement unconstitutional powers within 100 miles of a national border (I could be off, but this is how I remember it). If you really want to split hairs, the US has a LOT of borders if you include international airports.
- selfselfgo 1y ago
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- jaggajasoos33 1y agoA lot of our systems work because everyone at least half heartedly sort of goes by the rules. Yes, everyone sort of pretends to obey the rule and hence it works. In reality these systems are extremely fragile and a small committed minority can totally break years of precedent and systems. I think we are at that phase right now from the right side and soonish we will see the same from right left as well.
- smeej 1y agoMakes me think of the latter part of this quotation: "But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist." - Lysander Spooner (emphasis mine) Resilient systems have to align incentives such that they work whether or not everybody has enough good will or agreeability to play along. 250 years isn't a bad run. Maybe the next Constitution can iterate and fix the incentive alignment.
- ethbr1 1y agoThere are few ways to secure rules against every contingency that don't come at a cost in efficiency. Either you can have watchers all the way down and nothing gets done, or there are limits.
- markus_zhang 1y agoThat small minority probably showed up like a hundred years ago, or earlier.
- intended 1y agoTime! Time is the lever which a small group has used to make these changes. It’s been ~40 years of Talk Radio in America and ~30 years of TV, which has sold entertainment as news and fine tuned the ability to have a captive voting bloc. Producing accurate content is laborious, narratives are cheap. Facts are essentially luxury goods, and the left+center is selling them as public goods. This can never work, it takes too much to pay for and maintain the institutions which make this possible. The right is on the other hand, being organized and “flooding the zone”, in an unending effort to reduce faith in institutions. On top of it, information from the center and left doesn’t get consumed on the right. This took decades to set up. Today Trump’s approval ratings are down overall, but Republican support for Trump remains at its March number - 88%. Edit: If I could introduce another metaphor; it’s hard to sell your goods, where half the market is locked behind a monopoly that cuts corners, and sells junk food but can label it as health food. Oh, and they spend their profits, accusing health food of being spurious.
- hayst4ck 1y agoAn excerpt from They Thought They Were Free: "What no one seemed to notice," said a colleague of mine, a philologist, "was the ever widening gap, after 1933, between the government and the people. Just think how very wide this gap was to begin with, here in Germany. And it became always wider. You know, it doesn’t make people close to their government to be told that this is a people’s government, a true democracy, or to be enrolled in civilian defense, or even to vote. All this has little, really nothing, to do with knowing one is governing. "What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could not understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it. "This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter. (https://press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.htm https://press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.htm) It seems like it was ruled that instead of 1000, much more local, people able to protect constitutional rule with the force of the judiciary, we now have 9. If you analyze only based on power changes, now fewer people have more power.
- 0xbadcafebee 1y agoI've been waiting for it, and here it is: the Enabling Act of 1933. Trump can now make his own laws. 1934 is right around the corner.
- Havoc 1y agoI guess we’re in for some absolutely wild EOs then
- KoolKat23 1y agoDoes this ruling not directly contradict the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment? Guess now not everyone has the same rights in America. They can treat you how they wish unless you personally take it up. What next, personalised constitutions? rules for thee and not for me.
- theospeak 1y agoYou guys still interpreting the law while your country is being rendered lawless Oh, the luxury! You are secretly calm because you think it won't affect you.. until it does.
- coderatlarge 1y agowhat happens when an Nth generation american is accused of disloyalty and forced to prove their ancestors came to the country legally? i doubt most people can produce documentation reaching back several generations…