17 ms·

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf Justice Sotomayor dissents: > Instead,

https://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 ago
It 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 ago
  how did CAFA (and these other acts) affect class actions? why this led to their elimination?
bluecalm 1y ago
I 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 ago
  I'm worried about the trend of civil rights going unprotected until after a Supreme Court ruling.
  - throwaway48476 1y ago
    That's what laws are for. Courts aren't supposed to write them.
    - scarface_74 1y ago
      The law was written - in the Constitutuon - the judiciary interrupts them and the executive branch was suppose to enforce it.
      - throwaway48476 1y ago
        Most law, and most law courts deal with is federal law, not constitutional law. A lot of the most contentious recent court issues could be addressed with federal laws. It's just congress is lazy and doesn't want to go on record.
        fzeroracer 1y ago
        And where is federal law derived from? What does the court weigh against federal law when considering if it's enforceable or not?
        Thorrez 1y ago
        >And where is federal law derived from? It's written by the legislature. >What does the court weigh against federal law when considering if it's enforceable or not? When ruling whether it's enforceable or not, they weight it against the constitution, and against itself. When ruling how to enforce it, they interpret it primarily against itself.
        georgeecollins 1y ago
        Yes, but things like rights listed in the constitution have been protected by the supreme court regardless of laws. Things like your Miranda rights don't exist because of any law, they existed because of a supreme court ruling.
        nobody9999 1y ago
- sbohacek 1y ago
  The administration does not need to appeal to the supreme court. I don't think they would appeal it since it is being enforced as desired. Indeed, this is one of the concerns of the dissenting opinions.
- matthewowen 1y ago
  The problem (which Sotomayor raises in her dissent, pages 94 and 95 of the PDF) is that it may never reach the supreme court: > There is a serious question, moreover, whether this Court will ever get the chance to rule on the constitutionality of a policy like the Citizenship Order. Contra, ante, at 6 (opinion of KAVANAUGH, J.) (“[T]he losing parties in the courts of appeals will regularly come to this Court in matters involving major new federal statutes and executive actions”). In the ordinary course, parties who prevail in the lower courts generally cannot seek review from this Court, likely leaving it up to the Government’s discretion whether a petition will be filed here. These cases prove the point: Every court to consider the Citizenship Order’s merits has found that it is unconstitutional in preliminary rulings. Because respondents prevailed on the merits and received universal injunctions, they have no reason to file an appeal. The Government has no incentive to file a petition here either, because the outcome of such an appeal would be preordained. The Government recognizes as much, which is why its emergency applications challenged only the scope of the preliminary injunctions
  - bluecalm 1y ago
    That's a good point. I was under the impression that the current administration thinks it can win a case about 14th amendment in case both parents are not legally in US with current majority but if they are in fact not appealing it would mean they think they would lose.
  - Tadpole9181 1y ago
    Wait, doesn't this just... End the constitution as a whole? So long as the current executive wants some unconstitutional thing, they get that unconstitutional thing in every state on their side in perpetuity? The constitution is now... per-litigant?
    - eschaton 1y ago
      That’s the end goal. And to take over the other states too.
      - Tadpole9181 1y ago
- EasyMark 1y ago
  Note how they fast-tracked Trump's case so he could do maximum damage before any test of the 14th, and ignored the actual 14th amendment challenges.
AndrewKemendo 1y ago
>class action What you describe is voting We’re in this mess because people are not interested enough, educated enough, or engaged enough politically to make their position explicit to drive the direction of legislation and executive action. Citizens of The United States have every tool available to to work together to shape their communities. The reality is the overwhelming majority do not do that, and you can come up with a lot of reasons why, which are structural in many cases, but the fact remains that the majority of people are not involved in the political process at all, have no desire to be an actively reject any opportunity to be. Assuming that citizens would all of a sudden become involved because it requires a lawsuit, means that there’s the capacity to do so, which does not exist, and all we need is a catalyst. If the number of possible catalysts that have already happened in the last decade we’re not sufficient then nothing short of a literal terminator Skynet scenario is going to cause people to take action and I’m increasingly doubtful that even that would do it. Based on my observation from my work position, people are ready to just roll over onto their backs and have robots slice them from the belly up, because it’s easier than actually doing something that would prevent it.
- hakunin 1y ago
  I think this often gets confused. Voting a president in doesn't give them a blank mandate to do whatever they want, such as break the law. And knowingly doing things that might not get approved by courts, but veiling it in a "novel legal theory" disguise is still breaking the law. Just because slow and thorough processes need to take place to adjudicate these actions doesn't mean that these actions aren't worth adjudicating. So while voting is important, keeping the voted-in president accountable is important too.
  - jfengel 1y ago
    According to the Supreme Court, that's exactly what it does. The President simply isn't accountable. I would not have thought that this is what the Constitution says, but the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution says. That's not in the Constitution, either, but they've appropriated that job for two centuries, so we let them get away with it. The "it's not illegal if the President does it" part is new, though they've been leading up to it for decades, so it's not really surprising.
UncleMeat 1y ago
It could be fixed for the class with a class action. But the courts have also don't their damndest to make that hard too. Requiring a class action means that courts have the additional opportunity to say "nope that's not a valid class" (WalMart v Dukes being a rather famous example).
- dh2022 1y ago
  Thank you for this example - is very interesting. I read the Wikipedia article [0] and I would point out that a class defined by birth place would pass easily Scalia's test for commonality. So it seems that using a class action suit that includes every person born in US of un-documented parents would work. (But who knows what other tests the Supreme Court would come up now...) [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wal-Mart_Stores,_Inc._v._Dukes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wal-Mart_Stores,_Inc._v._Dukes
BryantD 1y ago
CASA Inc. in Maryland is in fact refiling its broader lawsuit as a class action case, and has asked for a wider injunction on that basis. So we'll see.
goodluckchuck 1y ago
Absolutely, and they discussed this. The “problem” with that is the results of a class action are binding on the class, win or lose. So it’s possible that you’re a member of the # Million person class-action claiming to be exempt from deportation because of X (because you didn’t opt-out) and the class could lose. The Universal Injunctions were a one-way rule. If the government lost any one case, the injunction would apply against the government in every other instance. However, if the government won, only that one person would be deported and the opposition would be free to try the same argument again with any of the other judges.
- salawat 1y ago
  Heh. Corollary: By joining the class, one is setting themselves up as a target by feeding targeting data for ICE into the Court system. The government doesn't even have to look for you now, because you self-selected into the class. Christ almighty. This is why we can't have nice things.

treetalker 1y ago

It 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 ago
how did CAFA (and these other acts) affect class actions? why this led to their elimination?

bluecalm 1y ago

I 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 ago
I'm worried about the trend of civil rights going unprotected until after a Supreme Court ruling.
- throwaway48476 1y ago
  That's what laws are for. Courts aren't supposed to write them.
  - scarface_74 1y ago
    The law was written - in the Constitutuon - the judiciary interrupts them and the executive branch was suppose to enforce it.
    - throwaway48476 1y ago
      Most law, and most law courts deal with is federal law, not constitutional law. A lot of the most contentious recent court issues could be addressed with federal laws. It's just congress is lazy and doesn't want to go on record.
      - fzeroracer 1y ago
        And where is federal law derived from? What does the court weigh against federal law when considering if it's enforceable or not?
        Thorrez 1y ago
        >And where is federal law derived from? It's written by the legislature. >What does the court weigh against federal law when considering if it's enforceable or not? When ruling whether it's enforceable or not, they weight it against the constitution, and against itself. When ruling how to enforce it, they interpret it primarily against itself.
      - georgeecollins 1y ago
        Yes, but things like rights listed in the constitution have been protected by the supreme court regardless of laws. Things like your Miranda rights don't exist because of any law, they existed because of a supreme court ruling.
      - nobody9999 1y ago
sbohacek 1y ago
The administration does not need to appeal to the supreme court. I don't think they would appeal it since it is being enforced as desired. Indeed, this is one of the concerns of the dissenting opinions.
matthewowen 1y ago
The problem (which Sotomayor raises in her dissent, pages 94 and 95 of the PDF) is that it may never reach the supreme court: > There is a serious question, moreover, whether this Court will ever get the chance to rule on the constitutionality of a policy like the Citizenship Order. Contra, ante, at 6 (opinion of KAVANAUGH, J.) (“[T]he losing parties in the courts of appeals will regularly come to this Court in matters involving major new federal statutes and executive actions”). In the ordinary course, parties who prevail in the lower courts generally cannot seek review from this Court, likely leaving it up to the Government’s discretion whether a petition will be filed here. These cases prove the point: Every court to consider the Citizenship Order’s merits has found that it is unconstitutional in preliminary rulings. Because respondents prevailed on the merits and received universal injunctions, they have no reason to file an appeal. The Government has no incentive to file a petition here either, because the outcome of such an appeal would be preordained. The Government recognizes as much, which is why its emergency applications challenged only the scope of the preliminary injunctions
- bluecalm 1y ago
  That's a good point. I was under the impression that the current administration thinks it can win a case about 14th amendment in case both parents are not legally in US with current majority but if they are in fact not appealing it would mean they think they would lose.
- Tadpole9181 1y ago
  Wait, doesn't this just... End the constitution as a whole? So long as the current executive wants some unconstitutional thing, they get that unconstitutional thing in every state on their side in perpetuity? The constitution is now... per-litigant?
  - eschaton 1y ago
    That’s the end goal. And to take over the other states too.
    - Tadpole9181 1y ago
EasyMark 1y ago
Note how they fast-tracked Trump's case so he could do maximum damage before any test of the 14th, and ignored the actual 14th amendment challenges.

AndrewKemendo 1y ago

>class action What you describe is voting We’re in this mess because people are not interested enough, educated enough, or engaged enough politically to make their position explicit to drive the direction of legislation and executive action. Citizens of The United States have every tool available to to work together to shape their communities. The reality is the overwhelming majority do not do that, and you can come up with a lot of reasons why, which are structural in many cases, but the fact remains that the majority of people are not involved in the political process at all, have no desire to be an actively reject any opportunity to be. Assuming that citizens would all of a sudden become involved because it requires a lawsuit, means that there’s the capacity to do so, which does not exist, and all we need is a catalyst. If the number of possible catalysts that have already happened in the last decade we’re not sufficient then nothing short of a literal terminator Skynet scenario is going to cause people to take action and I’m increasingly doubtful that even that would do it. Based on my observation from my work position, people are ready to just roll over onto their backs and have robots slice them from the belly up, because it’s easier than actually doing something that would prevent it.

hakunin 1y ago
I think this often gets confused. Voting a president in doesn't give them a blank mandate to do whatever they want, such as break the law. And knowingly doing things that might not get approved by courts, but veiling it in a "novel legal theory" disguise is still breaking the law. Just because slow and thorough processes need to take place to adjudicate these actions doesn't mean that these actions aren't worth adjudicating. So while voting is important, keeping the voted-in president accountable is important too.
- jfengel 1y ago
  According to the Supreme Court, that's exactly what it does. The President simply isn't accountable. I would not have thought that this is what the Constitution says, but the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution says. That's not in the Constitution, either, but they've appropriated that job for two centuries, so we let them get away with it. The "it's not illegal if the President does it" part is new, though they've been leading up to it for decades, so it's not really surprising.

UncleMeat 1y ago

It could be fixed for the class with a class action. But the courts have also don't their damndest to make that hard too. Requiring a class action means that courts have the additional opportunity to say "nope that's not a valid class" (WalMart v Dukes being a rather famous example).

dh2022 1y ago
Thank you for this example - is very interesting. I read the Wikipedia article [0] and I would point out that a class defined by birth place would pass easily Scalia's test for commonality. So it seems that using a class action suit that includes every person born in US of un-documented parents would work. (But who knows what other tests the Supreme Court would come up now...) [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wal-Mart_Stores,_Inc._v._Dukes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wal-Mart_Stores,_Inc._v._Dukes

BryantD 1y ago

CASA Inc. in Maryland is in fact refiling its broader lawsuit as a class action case, and has asked for a wider injunction on that basis. So we'll see.

goodluckchuck 1y ago

Absolutely, and they discussed this. The “problem” with that is the results of a class action are binding on the class, win or lose. So it’s possible that you’re a member of the # Million person class-action claiming to be exempt from deportation because of X (because you didn’t opt-out) and the class could lose. The Universal Injunctions were a one-way rule. If the government lost any one case, the injunction would apply against the government in every other instance. However, if the government won, only that one person would be deported and the opposition would be free to try the same argument again with any of the other judges.

salawat 1y ago
Heh. Corollary: By joining the class, one is setting themselves up as a target by feeding targeting data for ICE into the Court system. The government doesn't even have to look for you now, because you self-selected into the class. Christ almighty. This is why we can't have nice things.