3 ms·

There'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) conse

by cmurf 1y ago

There'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 ago
  That’s true, they have no power of the Supreme Court like the Rs do…oops
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
mannyv 1y ago
You 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.
  - delecti 1y ago
    > What makes no sense is the newly possible situation in which an action violates the U.S. Constitution in one district but not another That's not new. It's called a circuit split, and generally results in the cases being combined when SCOTUS hears them to sort out the difference.
    - nobody9999 1y ago
      >That's not new. It's called a circuit split, and generally results in the cases being combined when SCOTUS hears them to sort out the difference. Absolutely. As it should be. The problem here is that the SCOTUS decision under discussion here makes it less likely (perhaps quite unlikely) that the SCOTUS will even be asked to "sort out the difference." That's because their ruling today made it clear that if you're not a named plaintiff in a suit against the government, you are not subject to/protected by any ruling on that case, unless and until, a SCOTUS ruling sorts it out. And since the prevailing party has no standing to appeal (only the "losing" party -- party as in plaintiff/defendant, not political party), if the Executive Branch doesn't appeal, SCOTUS will never see such cases -- thus leaving the Executive branch to do literally anything with impunity outside the realm of the circuit court involved.
  - chasd00 1y ago
    >an action violates the U.S. Constitution in one district but not another. aren't those cases the point of the Supreme Court? when districts conflict it goes to the Supreme Court.
    - Tadpole9181 1y ago
      Distinctly no, this is in the dissent. That requires an appeal from the government and for SCOTUS to pick up the case in a reasonable time. Now the government can choose to "lose" in some places and let the injunction stand. Then, in all other locations in the country, the constitution of the United States is quite literally different in perpetuity. And it's not even by-locality, sans cases brought by a state government. SCOTUS has defined injunctions as by-litigant. So now two babies born next to each other in the same hospital to visa parents can have different naturalization statuses based on if those parents had sued in the right district court or not. This makes US law effectively intractable. The only natural resolution then is to visit Obergfell - the gay marriage case that the current SCOTUS majority has harped against for years in their rulings - and resolve the conflict by appealing to the federal nature of the law & enforcement, revoking citizenship of even those with an injunction. In another comment I've gone into detail on exactly how the federal government can force that case to the SCOTUS.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- hayst4ck 1y ago
  If the law is universal then it makes sense that courts can rule universally. If the law is arbitrary and every judge is basically a ruler of their own domain, which directly conflicts with the idea of Rule of Law, then it would be invalid for a lower court to make universal rulings. It is precisely the universality and supremacy of the law which gives the lower courts the authority to make universal rulings. Just because something is federally illegal in one federal district doesn't mean it is legal in another. The lower court doesn't have more authority than the appellate court if the appellate court can overturn the lower court. No court has the "authority" to make arbitrary unlawful rulings.
refurb 1y ago
Why would a D president reverse it? It gives a D president more power, not less.
- wtfwhateven 1y ago
  A president cannot overturn it. I think they meant that the moment the next democrat president does something red states find unpopular this ruling will be overturned by the very same justices who agreed with it in the first place. Which isn't an unreasonable belief sadly.
  - refurb 1y ago
    True, US politics has no sense of fair play (but I haven’t seen much better in other countries I’ve lived). I would fully expect Rs to complain about it if it used against them. And it may be overturned, but judicial decisions are based on law to date. So if either party games it to the detriment of the system, I’d assume it would be overturned.

by cmurf 1y ago

15155 1y ago

> this gets reversed early on. Through what legal avenue?

bamboozled 1y ago
That’s true, they have no power of the Supreme Court like the Rs do…oops

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

mannyv 1y ago

You 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.
- delecti 1y ago
  > What makes no sense is the newly possible situation in which an action violates the U.S. Constitution in one district but not another That's not new. It's called a circuit split, and generally results in the cases being combined when SCOTUS hears them to sort out the difference.
  - nobody9999 1y ago
    >That's not new. It's called a circuit split, and generally results in the cases being combined when SCOTUS hears them to sort out the difference. Absolutely. As it should be. The problem here is that the SCOTUS decision under discussion here makes it less likely (perhaps quite unlikely) that the SCOTUS will even be asked to "sort out the difference." That's because their ruling today made it clear that if you're not a named plaintiff in a suit against the government, you are not subject to/protected by any ruling on that case, unless and until, a SCOTUS ruling sorts it out. And since the prevailing party has no standing to appeal (only the "losing" party -- party as in plaintiff/defendant, not political party), if the Executive Branch doesn't appeal, SCOTUS will never see such cases -- thus leaving the Executive branch to do literally anything with impunity outside the realm of the circuit court involved.
- chasd00 1y ago
  >an action violates the U.S. Constitution in one district but not another. aren't those cases the point of the Supreme Court? when districts conflict it goes to the Supreme Court.
  - Tadpole9181 1y ago
    Distinctly no, this is in the dissent. That requires an appeal from the government and for SCOTUS to pick up the case in a reasonable time. Now the government can choose to "lose" in some places and let the injunction stand. Then, in all other locations in the country, the constitution of the United States is quite literally different in perpetuity. And it's not even by-locality, sans cases brought by a state government. SCOTUS has defined injunctions as by-litigant. So now two babies born next to each other in the same hospital to visa parents can have different naturalization statuses based on if those parents had sued in the right district court or not. This makes US law effectively intractable. The only natural resolution then is to visit Obergfell - the gay marriage case that the current SCOTUS majority has harped against for years in their rulings - and resolve the conflict by appealing to the federal nature of the law & enforcement, revoking citizenship of even those with an injunction. In another comment I've gone into detail on exactly how the federal government can force that case to the SCOTUS.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
hayst4ck 1y ago
If the law is universal then it makes sense that courts can rule universally. If the law is arbitrary and every judge is basically a ruler of their own domain, which directly conflicts with the idea of Rule of Law, then it would be invalid for a lower court to make universal rulings. It is precisely the universality and supremacy of the law which gives the lower courts the authority to make universal rulings. Just because something is federally illegal in one federal district doesn't mean it is legal in another. The lower court doesn't have more authority than the appellate court if the appellate court can overturn the lower court. No court has the "authority" to make arbitrary unlawful rulings.

refurb 1y ago

Why would a D president reverse it? It gives a D president more power, not less.

wtfwhateven 1y ago
A president cannot overturn it. I think they meant that the moment the next democrat president does something red states find unpopular this ruling will be overturned by the very same justices who agreed with it in the first place. Which isn't an unreasonable belief sadly.
- refurb 1y ago
  True, US politics has no sense of fair play (but I haven’t seen much better in other countries I’ve lived). I would fully expect Rs to complain about it if it used against them. And it may be overturned, but judicial decisions are based on law to date. So if either party games it to the detriment of the system, I’d assume it would be overturned.