2 ms·
From my reading and understanding, they still can, it just involves an _immense_ amount more paperwork. The ruling is basically that judges can only provide in
by everforward 1y ago
From my reading and understanding, they still can, it just involves an _immense_ amount more paperwork. The ruling is basically that judges can only provide injunctions for the named party in a case, not universal injunctions. So instead of one injunction, each person impacted by the EO will have to file for their own injunction. Which will likely be granted due to similar injunctions already granted.
So it reads to me like we've ended up in a similar spot, but with the requirement that an insane amount of paperwork happens.
- peddling-brink 1y agoNot all people affected by an EO have an equal opportunity to generate that paperwork. Going to court or getting involved in the legal system have costs, of both time and money. Not something all people have enough of to spare.
- paulryanrogers 1y agoWe don't have enough courts. The population has grown yet the courts haven't, and now it's effectively pay to play.
- everforward 1y agoAhh, I mistakenly thought some form of public defenders were appointed in deportation cases. The free lawyers I’ve seen must have been from non-profits. That is indeed a big issue.
- malcolmgreaves 1y agoNo it’s not the same spot at all. No one will file injunctions. There is also the possibility that another’s court case for the same reason won’t be decided the same way. What this means is that it’s now ok for the orange man to break the law. Rule of law will only be upheld in very limited circumstances in very limited areas.