9 ms·

The majority seems too trusting that the government will appeal its losses. Strategically, the government could enact a policy affecting a million people, be s

The 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 ago
This 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.
  - goosedragons 1y ago
    Are you against public school in general? Should the childless be forced to pay? Are you against public roads? Should the car-less be forced to pay? Are you against firefighters? Should those not currently involved in a fire be forced to pay? I guarantee somebody else has paid for something they haven't used that you have. We're a society. Part of that is sharing costs. Big reason so much is so fucked up right now is because we're doing a bad job of it.
    - Whoppertime 1y ago
      I am against rich people putting their kids in private school on credit then having that debt "forgiven" and paid for by people who sent their kids to public school. I am sure those kids are getting a benefit from private education. That doesn't mean I should bail them out and pay their bill
    - codeguro 1y ago
      Firstly, I don't think you're engaging in good faith. I won't humor shotgun questions like yours. They're not even on topic. If you want to talk about these topics, then we do them separately and one at a time. Those are my terms. Secondly, just because I participate in a society doesn't mean I agree with how it's run or that I don't see room for improvement. That argument boils down to a Mr Gotcha comic. Here's a good start. Don't have people who don't make the choice to take out loans be forced to pay off those loans. I don't think it's unreasonable that you bear the costs of your _personal_ investments for your _personal_ future. Whether or not society as a whole benefits from it is besides the point. They are _personal_ investments at their core, and they can be paid off with your higher future income. Borrow against your future, not mine. Society's part is contributing to your higher income through business at each individuals' personal discretion. Don't make the mistake thinking anybody owes you anything more. You're not entitle to a higher income even if you went to college. When you made a bad investment, you pay for it. I'm not paying for your lesbian dance theory degree, and neither is the plumber making a living without some degree.
      - goosedragons 1y ago
Spooky23 1y ago
Since we’re rendering people to El Salvador, there’s no reason some ICE bounty hunter can’t grab you in Massachusetts, and dump you in some Home Depot parking lot in the Carolinas.
- stogot 1y ago
  Would this not be by residency? If you are a Oklahoma resident, then do either of those states matter?
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    Nope. That's why the Feds were moving high-profile detainees to Louisiana as quickly as possible; for a more friendly judicial setup. https://www.axios.com/2025/03/27/trump-immigration-louisiana-5th-circuit https://www.axios.com/2025/03/27/trump-immigration-louisiana...
  - Spooky23 1y ago
    No, you need to be in the specific judicial district to be protected until there’s a class action suit with an injunction. This is all a joke anyway. There’s no real rule of law. This is a game to extract more power.
- tmountain 1y ago
  Masked ice bounty hunter in an unmarked vehicle.
SrslyJosh 1y ago
[flagged]
djoldman 1y ago
I'm not a lawyer. What's the chance that this could be addressed via class action?
- CyanLite2 1y ago
  High likelihood and even Mustice Thomas mentioned it being high. Even then, it only affects those in the class. E.g., it wouldn’t stop across the board federal enforcement as unconstitutional. It would take take a better part of a decade for that class action to move forward.
  - djoldman 1y ago
    Couldn't class be everyone these national injunctions would previously have affected?
grogers 1y ago
IANAL but isn't any ruling by even a lower court precedent? Like if I sue the government for thing A and a lower court rules in my favor, doesn't that make the next plaintiff's case for sueing the government for thing A much easier? All it seems to do is make everything much less efficient.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- nwallin 1y ago
  It's only binding in that district. So here's how the loophole works. There are 12 courts of appeals. You (ICE) does a bad thing. (renditions a US citizen to an El Salvador concentration camp without due process) You get sued, appeal it to that court of appeals. Let's say it's the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, let's say you lose. You take the L and move on. You never do the bad thing in the 9th circuit again: that decision is binding. Then you do it again in a different circuit. Let's say you do the bad thing in Texas, where the 9th circuit decision was not binding. Let's say you win this time. Now the 5th circuit is your playground. From now on, every time you arrest someone in the 9th circuit, you put them on an express flight to anywhere in the 5th district within an hour or so of arresting them, before they can get a lawyer to talk to a judge. The precedent that matters is the 5th circuit precedent, where the detainee is right now, not the 9th district (or anywhere else) where they were detained. Because the Supreme Court has now ruled that this is a lower court problem, they've effectively blocked anyone from ever getting justice ever again.
  - goodluckchuck 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - sylos 1y ago
      If some guy on hacker news can think of it, you know the lawyers working with the doj/ice have.
    - acdha 1y ago
cyanmagenta 1y ago
That was a concern noted by the dissent. That said, the procedure here is to just use class action lawsuits to get nationwide injunctions. The opinion explicitly notes that it is an option. And today there was a big flurry of people amending their complaints to do just that.
- Spivak 1y ago
  I actually have some insider info on this. While it sounds like in theory all you have to do is take your existing lawsuit and add the additional step on certifying your class, that option isn't available for the vast majority of legal challenges. In the history of the ACLU they have had less than ten cases where they could have been converted into a class action. As a real life example the "trans women being moved to men's prisons" case isn't eligible to be made into a class action. Tangentially related if you want to see a painfully explicit example of "the cruelty is the point" read that EO. Even if you're someone who broadly agrees with the order it's a lot. Unfortunately "the set of people who are affected by this law" doesn't define a class.
  - aaron695 1y ago
    > ACLU Lets not forget the ACLU has burnt 100 years of goodwill to become the bad guys in the past decade. They went from from amazing freedom fighters to lets hope their organization gets destroyed because of the awful humans they let in internally in recent times. I understand there is a split with an old guard still fighting to get it back, but they will lose. > "the cruelty is the point" read that EO Helps if you link it - https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/defending-women-from-gender-ideology-extremism-and-restoring-biological-truth-to-the-federal-government/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/defe...
    - Scipio_Afri 1y ago
      Mind providing a link to more info about your first claim about the ACLU?
rufus_foreman 1y ago
[flagged]
- magicalist 1y ago
  >> The majority seems too trusting that the government will appeal its losses > You seem too skeptical that the Supreme Court wouldn't see right through that. See right through what? If it's never brought to the Supreme Court, it's never brought to the Supreme Court.
  - rufus_foreman 1y ago
    The Supreme Court decides what gets brought to the Supreme Court. You don't like the outcome so you're shitting on the process.
    - aspenmayer 1y ago
      > The Supreme Court decides what gets brought to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decides whether to take a given case once it is brought.
    - acoustics 1y ago
      There is no statute authorizing the Justices to pluck an un-appealed district-court judgment out of the system on their own initiative.
Aloisius 1y ago
Does the government have to appeal their losses to go to a higher court? Seems like all one would need is a case where the government won at a lower court, allowing the other party can appeal. And if they never win, then the issue is more about legal resources than anything else, no?
- acoustics 1y ago
  > And if they never win, then the issue is more about legal resources than anything else, no? Right. If the government wants to take a very broad action, it is happy to eat some individual losses here and there. Most people won't be able to sue.

DarknessFalls 1y ago

This 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.
- goosedragons 1y ago
  Are you against public school in general? Should the childless be forced to pay? Are you against public roads? Should the car-less be forced to pay? Are you against firefighters? Should those not currently involved in a fire be forced to pay? I guarantee somebody else has paid for something they haven't used that you have. We're a society. Part of that is sharing costs. Big reason so much is so fucked up right now is because we're doing a bad job of it.
  - Whoppertime 1y ago
    I am against rich people putting their kids in private school on credit then having that debt "forgiven" and paid for by people who sent their kids to public school. I am sure those kids are getting a benefit from private education. That doesn't mean I should bail them out and pay their bill
  - codeguro 1y ago
    Firstly, I don't think you're engaging in good faith. I won't humor shotgun questions like yours. They're not even on topic. If you want to talk about these topics, then we do them separately and one at a time. Those are my terms. Secondly, just because I participate in a society doesn't mean I agree with how it's run or that I don't see room for improvement. That argument boils down to a Mr Gotcha comic. Here's a good start. Don't have people who don't make the choice to take out loans be forced to pay off those loans. I don't think it's unreasonable that you bear the costs of your _personal_ investments for your _personal_ future. Whether or not society as a whole benefits from it is besides the point. They are _personal_ investments at their core, and they can be paid off with your higher future income. Borrow against your future, not mine. Society's part is contributing to your higher income through business at each individuals' personal discretion. Don't make the mistake thinking anybody owes you anything more. You're not entitle to a higher income even if you went to college. When you made a bad investment, you pay for it. I'm not paying for your lesbian dance theory degree, and neither is the plumber making a living without some degree.
    - goosedragons 1y ago

Spooky23 1y ago

Since we’re rendering people to El Salvador, there’s no reason some ICE bounty hunter can’t grab you in Massachusetts, and dump you in some Home Depot parking lot in the Carolinas.

stogot 1y ago
Would this not be by residency? If you are a Oklahoma resident, then do either of those states matter?
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  Nope. That's why the Feds were moving high-profile detainees to Louisiana as quickly as possible; for a more friendly judicial setup. https://www.axios.com/2025/03/27/trump-immigration-louisiana-5th-circuit https://www.axios.com/2025/03/27/trump-immigration-louisiana...
- Spooky23 1y ago
  No, you need to be in the specific judicial district to be protected until there’s a class action suit with an injunction. This is all a joke anyway. There’s no real rule of law. This is a game to extract more power.
tmountain 1y ago
Masked ice bounty hunter in an unmarked vehicle.

SrslyJosh 1y ago

[flagged]

djoldman 1y ago

I'm not a lawyer. What's the chance that this could be addressed via class action?

CyanLite2 1y ago
High likelihood and even Mustice Thomas mentioned it being high. Even then, it only affects those in the class. E.g., it wouldn’t stop across the board federal enforcement as unconstitutional. It would take take a better part of a decade for that class action to move forward.
- djoldman 1y ago
  Couldn't class be everyone these national injunctions would previously have affected?

grogers 1y ago

IANAL but isn't any ruling by even a lower court precedent? Like if I sue the government for thing A and a lower court rules in my favor, doesn't that make the next plaintiff's case for sueing the government for thing A much easier? All it seems to do is make everything much less efficient.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
nwallin 1y ago
It's only binding in that district. So here's how the loophole works. There are 12 courts of appeals. You (ICE) does a bad thing. (renditions a US citizen to an El Salvador concentration camp without due process) You get sued, appeal it to that court of appeals. Let's say it's the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, let's say you lose. You take the L and move on. You never do the bad thing in the 9th circuit again: that decision is binding. Then you do it again in a different circuit. Let's say you do the bad thing in Texas, where the 9th circuit decision was not binding. Let's say you win this time. Now the 5th circuit is your playground. From now on, every time you arrest someone in the 9th circuit, you put them on an express flight to anywhere in the 5th district within an hour or so of arresting them, before they can get a lawyer to talk to a judge. The precedent that matters is the 5th circuit precedent, where the detainee is right now, not the 9th district (or anywhere else) where they were detained. Because the Supreme Court has now ruled that this is a lower court problem, they've effectively blocked anyone from ever getting justice ever again.
- goodluckchuck 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - sylos 1y ago
    If some guy on hacker news can think of it, you know the lawyers working with the doj/ice have.
  - acdha 1y ago

cyanmagenta 1y ago

That was a concern noted by the dissent. That said, the procedure here is to just use class action lawsuits to get nationwide injunctions. The opinion explicitly notes that it is an option. And today there was a big flurry of people amending their complaints to do just that.

Spivak 1y ago
I actually have some insider info on this. While it sounds like in theory all you have to do is take your existing lawsuit and add the additional step on certifying your class, that option isn't available for the vast majority of legal challenges. In the history of the ACLU they have had less than ten cases where they could have been converted into a class action. As a real life example the "trans women being moved to men's prisons" case isn't eligible to be made into a class action. Tangentially related if you want to see a painfully explicit example of "the cruelty is the point" read that EO. Even if you're someone who broadly agrees with the order it's a lot. Unfortunately "the set of people who are affected by this law" doesn't define a class.
- aaron695 1y ago
  > ACLU Lets not forget the ACLU has burnt 100 years of goodwill to become the bad guys in the past decade. They went from from amazing freedom fighters to lets hope their organization gets destroyed because of the awful humans they let in internally in recent times. I understand there is a split with an old guard still fighting to get it back, but they will lose. > "the cruelty is the point" read that EO Helps if you link it - https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/defending-women-from-gender-ideology-extremism-and-restoring-biological-truth-to-the-federal-government/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/defe...
  - Scipio_Afri 1y ago
    Mind providing a link to more info about your first claim about the ACLU?

rufus_foreman 1y ago

[flagged]

magicalist 1y ago
>> The majority seems too trusting that the government will appeal its losses > You seem too skeptical that the Supreme Court wouldn't see right through that. See right through what? If it's never brought to the Supreme Court, it's never brought to the Supreme Court.
- rufus_foreman 1y ago
  The Supreme Court decides what gets brought to the Supreme Court. You don't like the outcome so you're shitting on the process.
  - aspenmayer 1y ago
    > The Supreme Court decides what gets brought to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decides whether to take a given case once it is brought.
  - acoustics 1y ago
    There is no statute authorizing the Justices to pluck an un-appealed district-court judgment out of the system on their own initiative.

Aloisius 1y ago

Does the government have to appeal their losses to go to a higher court? Seems like all one would need is a case where the government won at a lower court, allowing the other party can appeal. And if they never win, then the issue is more about legal resources than anything else, no?

acoustics 1y ago
> And if they never win, then the issue is more about legal resources than anything else, no? Right. If the government wants to take a very broad action, it is happy to eat some individual losses here and there. Most people won't be able to sue.