6 ms·

Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions in birthright citizenship order

41 points by donsupreme 1y ago

Marazan 1y ago
Federal court orders aren't federal it seems.
- throwaway48476 1y ago
  They're federal district courts.
  - esseph 1y ago
    Not relevant in the history of the country until today.
    - throwaway48476 1y ago
      Circuit splits have existed since the beginning. It's always mattered.
    - Ancapistani 1y ago
      A felon in Chicago who (illegally) possesses an unregistered machine gun cannot be prosecuted under the National Firearms Act, while the same person in the same circumstances in New Orleans can. There’s case law in the 7th Circuit that says that requiring a felon to register it would be tantamount to compelling self-incrimination. That case was not challenged by the BATFE at the SCOTUS level for fear of the precedent being made. As a result, NFA violations by anyone who cannot lawfully possess a firearm at all cannot be prosecuted in the 7th Circuit. They can still be prosecuted for simple possession, of course, but not for failing to register.
rawgabbit 1y ago
Quote >On his first day in office this year, he signed an executive order declaring that babies born in the U.S. may not be citizens if their parents were not here legally or if the parents were here legally but on a temporary basis like a work visa. Does this mean for workers in the US on the H1B visa, their children who are born in the US will no longer automatically be US citizens?
- breakyerself 1y ago
  It's not a great sign that the supreme Court didn't uphold the injunctions, but I still have some hope that even this almost worthless supreme Court would overrule such a blatantly unconstitutional executive order.
  - rkagerer 1y ago
    How long do you think it will take for a case with the meat of the matter to work its way to a Supreme Court decision? I heard there were multiple suits filed within days of the order being signed; which one is closest?
    - breakyerself 1y ago
      I wish I could tell you. There was something in the injunctions requiring some kind of relief for the specific parties in the cases so it seems like they're trying to avoid taking it head on.
- stego-tech 1y ago
  That’s the gist, yes, at least initially. It never stops at a given category of person, though, and you can assume next steps would be to set arbitrary milestones and dates around who is and is not a citizen based on birthright. Picture the glut of immigrants in the 1800 and 1900s who never got proper citizenship, or only had permanent residency. You can bet that the next step would be to say if you can’t point to a US Citizen direct ancestor after a given year, you’re no longer a citizen yourself. That’s why revocation through Executive Order alone is so dangerous: its intent isn’t merely to get all undesirables today, but all undesirables ever, no matter what the definition of “undesirable” is.
  - throwaway48476 1y ago
    Some of us can trace ancestry to service in the revolutionary war.
ChrisArchitect 1y ago
[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44398710 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44398710
josefritzishere 1y ago
Executive Orders do not overrule the Constitution. That would mean there is no law. No law at all. It would make every president a dictator; whose word is law. Something which is unthinkable and incompatible with democracy.
- sundaeofshock 1y ago
  And yet here we are. This court has decided that Trump is a king and that’s pretty much it.
  - readthenotes1 1y ago
    No, they decided that any particular federal judge is not King and that if there's going to be broad spread relief, there needs to be a class action suit brought, or that the supreme Court needs to step in.
    - HaZeust 1y ago
      Let me preface this by first saying your reply is "No" to a comment that stated the courts just ruled the President as a King. You followed that by saying they just decided no federal judge is King (not what OP said), and you supported both of your statements by saying that, "if there's going to be broad spread relief [to an executive action], there needs to be a class action suit brought, or that the supreme Court needs to step in". And tell me, what branch of government is the loss of the steadfast check-and-balance known as "universal injunctions" in favor of – and will now require for ANY AND ALL parties to ONLY be recognized for their loss and damages from actions of the Executive ONLY IF they have the means to sue for it and prevail – in a 1:1 cardinality? Could it be the Executive, who OP said this supported Kingsmanship for? If a executive action is so unjust, so grotesque, and you need to round up parties damaged by it – outside of the absurdly long time most courts take to make things whole – can't that also be a way to round up people being directly targeted by 1 of 3 branches? Example: EO-1 quietly builds a “voluntary” federal digital ID, so no one is harmed and nobody has standing for their own injunctions. Then, EO-2 later makes that ID mandatory to file taxes, get Social Security, renew a passport, etc. Real injury finally appears, but each citizen must sue alone and any victory helps only that plaintiff while everyone else stays locked out. The first order sinks the foundations; the second flips the switch. That’s the executive tilt OP warned about.
whatever1 1y ago
Very relevant to the high skilled workers who are for decades in a visa status waiting for their green card processing. Their children, if born in one of the 20ish states that did not take legal action against the executive order, will NOT be american citizens. In fact, I dont even know whether there will be a path to citizenship or legal status in general for their children, assuming they will probably be adults by the time their parents get their green card.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

41 points by donsupreme 1y ago

Marazan 1y ago

Federal court orders aren't federal it seems.

throwaway48476 1y ago
They're federal district courts.
- esseph 1y ago
  Not relevant in the history of the country until today.
  - throwaway48476 1y ago
    Circuit splits have existed since the beginning. It's always mattered.
  - Ancapistani 1y ago
    A felon in Chicago who (illegally) possesses an unregistered machine gun cannot be prosecuted under the National Firearms Act, while the same person in the same circumstances in New Orleans can. There’s case law in the 7th Circuit that says that requiring a felon to register it would be tantamount to compelling self-incrimination. That case was not challenged by the BATFE at the SCOTUS level for fear of the precedent being made. As a result, NFA violations by anyone who cannot lawfully possess a firearm at all cannot be prosecuted in the 7th Circuit. They can still be prosecuted for simple possession, of course, but not for failing to register.

rawgabbit 1y ago

Quote >On his first day in office this year, he signed an executive order declaring that babies born in the U.S. may not be citizens if their parents were not here legally or if the parents were here legally but on a temporary basis like a work visa. Does this mean for workers in the US on the H1B visa, their children who are born in the US will no longer automatically be US citizens?

breakyerself 1y ago
It's not a great sign that the supreme Court didn't uphold the injunctions, but I still have some hope that even this almost worthless supreme Court would overrule such a blatantly unconstitutional executive order.
- rkagerer 1y ago
  How long do you think it will take for a case with the meat of the matter to work its way to a Supreme Court decision? I heard there were multiple suits filed within days of the order being signed; which one is closest?
  - breakyerself 1y ago
    I wish I could tell you. There was something in the injunctions requiring some kind of relief for the specific parties in the cases so it seems like they're trying to avoid taking it head on.
stego-tech 1y ago
That’s the gist, yes, at least initially. It never stops at a given category of person, though, and you can assume next steps would be to set arbitrary milestones and dates around who is and is not a citizen based on birthright. Picture the glut of immigrants in the 1800 and 1900s who never got proper citizenship, or only had permanent residency. You can bet that the next step would be to say if you can’t point to a US Citizen direct ancestor after a given year, you’re no longer a citizen yourself. That’s why revocation through Executive Order alone is so dangerous: its intent isn’t merely to get all undesirables today, but all undesirables ever, no matter what the definition of “undesirable” is.
- throwaway48476 1y ago
  Some of us can trace ancestry to service in the revolutionary war.

ChrisArchitect 1y ago

[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44398710 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44398710

josefritzishere 1y ago

Executive Orders do not overrule the Constitution. That would mean there is no law. No law at all. It would make every president a dictator; whose word is law. Something which is unthinkable and incompatible with democracy.

sundaeofshock 1y ago
And yet here we are. This court has decided that Trump is a king and that’s pretty much it.
- readthenotes1 1y ago
  No, they decided that any particular federal judge is not King and that if there's going to be broad spread relief, there needs to be a class action suit brought, or that the supreme Court needs to step in.
  - HaZeust 1y ago
    Let me preface this by first saying your reply is "No" to a comment that stated the courts just ruled the President as a King. You followed that by saying they just decided no federal judge is King (not what OP said), and you supported both of your statements by saying that, "if there's going to be broad spread relief [to an executive action], there needs to be a class action suit brought, or that the supreme Court needs to step in". And tell me, what branch of government is the loss of the steadfast check-and-balance known as "universal injunctions" in favor of – and will now require for ANY AND ALL parties to ONLY be recognized for their loss and damages from actions of the Executive ONLY IF they have the means to sue for it and prevail – in a 1:1 cardinality? Could it be the Executive, who OP said this supported Kingsmanship for? If a executive action is so unjust, so grotesque, and you need to round up parties damaged by it – outside of the absurdly long time most courts take to make things whole – can't that also be a way to round up people being directly targeted by 1 of 3 branches? Example: EO-1 quietly builds a “voluntary” federal digital ID, so no one is harmed and nobody has standing for their own injunctions. Then, EO-2 later makes that ID mandatory to file taxes, get Social Security, renew a passport, etc. Real injury finally appears, but each citizen must sue alone and any victory helps only that plaintiff while everyone else stays locked out. The first order sinks the foundations; the second flips the switch. That’s the executive tilt OP warned about.

whatever1 1y ago

Very relevant to the high skilled workers who are for decades in a visa status waiting for their green card processing. Their children, if born in one of the 20ish states that did not take legal action against the executive order, will NOT be american citizens. In fact, I dont even know whether there will be a path to citizenship or legal status in general for their children, assuming they will probably be adults by the time their parents get their green card.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]