4 ms·

> Nationwide injunctions were never clearly authorized by statute, and letting any one of 700 district judges block a federal policy everywhere created chaos an

> Nationwide injunctions were never clearly authorized by statute, and letting any one of 700 district judges block a federal policy everywhere created chaos and forum shopping. What chaos that would be worse than the chaos of jurisdictional fracturing they're asking for here and the possibility to not let cases escalate to courts with supposed national jurisdiction? Rulings were stayed all the time. The existence of a national injunction seems built in to the job of a federal judge since federal law is definitionally national. Voiding it only locally, or only in regard to specific plaintiffs, seems like a huge wishful reach.

firesteelrain 1y ago
But, we did get conflicting nationwide rulings from different district courts, which encouraged forum shopping and rushed litigation. Federal law is national, but relief in equity has always been limited to the parties before the court unless a class is certified > The existence of a national injunction seems built in to the job of a federal judge since federal law is definitionally national That’s a clever line. See, there is a difference between saying “this law is unconstitutional” and saying “this law is blocked for everyone, everywhere.”
- majormajor 1y ago
  >But, we did get conflicting nationwide rulings from different district courts, which encouraged forum shopping and rushed litigation. And... who was suffering for it, exactly? How was it hurting me? > That’s a clever line. > > See, there is a difference between saying “this law is unconstitutional” and saying “this law is blocked for everyone, everywhere.” "This law is only blocked for these people" is the less "clever", more "obvious" situation in your mind? No, that's a clever hack that same sneaky bastard came up with to justify removing further obstacles for the executive to increase its own power. But it seems to fly against the face of history. Federal law has been in the business of preempting local authority for centuries. Now we want to unwind that and let jurisdictions opt-out case-by-case?
  - firesteelrain 1y ago
    Whether you were personally hurt isn’t the point. Conflicting nationwide rulings from different judges created legal chaos and undermined consistency Courts can still block unlawful policies, but broad relief should come through class actions This ruling doesn’t undo federal supremacy. It just puts guardrails around how relief is issued
    - majormajor 1y ago
      This ruling opens the door for more inconsistency. Things can dead-end in a fractured state much more easily now. Without you telling me any specific harms of the "chaos and inconsistency", and how you think they will be reduced now, then I can only consider the harms of the new potentials for inconsistency which is "the excecutive intentionally does not appeal when they lose to small groups because they want to be able to continue to overreach nationally." What are the concrete examples of chaotic things that caused issues that you don't think could happen now?
      - firesteelrain 1y ago
        These come to mind: 1. In 2017, one district court blocked Trump’s travel ban nationwide, while others upheld it. That led to confusion at airports and legal whiplash 2. In 2019, one judge blocked the public charge immigration rule nationwide, while others allowed it. The rule ended up applying in some States and not others 3. Multiple district courts issued conflicting nationwide injunctions on Title IX guidance for transgender students during the Obama and Trump years Those are just some Inconsistency is still possible. But the alternative was worse What we had was a race to the most favorable courtroom The fix isn’t unlimited injunctions. It’s reform and not stretching judicial power beyond what the law allows
        majormajor 1y ago
        And what happened next in those cases? Was the inconsistency resolved? How is there less room for inconsistency now? If a judge has said five plaintiffs can play on a certain sports team in one jurisdiction, now the sports administrators need to know every ruling in every jurisdiction that their league functions in? What makes you think "reform" is going to happen here? Have you read much of the material pushing for increased executive power on the right? It's very clear that the goal is solely to remove impediments to stretch executive power to the point that executive power decides what the law allows.

firesteelrain 1y ago

But, we did get conflicting nationwide rulings from different district courts, which encouraged forum shopping and rushed litigation. Federal law is national, but relief in equity has always been limited to the parties before the court unless a class is certified > The existence of a national injunction seems built in to the job of a federal judge since federal law is definitionally national That’s a clever line. See, there is a difference between saying “this law is unconstitutional” and saying “this law is blocked for everyone, everywhere.”

majormajor 1y ago
>But, we did get conflicting nationwide rulings from different district courts, which encouraged forum shopping and rushed litigation. And... who was suffering for it, exactly? How was it hurting me? > That’s a clever line. > > See, there is a difference between saying “this law is unconstitutional” and saying “this law is blocked for everyone, everywhere.” "This law is only blocked for these people" is the less "clever", more "obvious" situation in your mind? No, that's a clever hack that same sneaky bastard came up with to justify removing further obstacles for the executive to increase its own power. But it seems to fly against the face of history. Federal law has been in the business of preempting local authority for centuries. Now we want to unwind that and let jurisdictions opt-out case-by-case?
- firesteelrain 1y ago
  Whether you were personally hurt isn’t the point. Conflicting nationwide rulings from different judges created legal chaos and undermined consistency Courts can still block unlawful policies, but broad relief should come through class actions This ruling doesn’t undo federal supremacy. It just puts guardrails around how relief is issued
  - majormajor 1y ago
    This ruling opens the door for more inconsistency. Things can dead-end in a fractured state much more easily now. Without you telling me any specific harms of the "chaos and inconsistency", and how you think they will be reduced now, then I can only consider the harms of the new potentials for inconsistency which is "the excecutive intentionally does not appeal when they lose to small groups because they want to be able to continue to overreach nationally." What are the concrete examples of chaotic things that caused issues that you don't think could happen now?
    - firesteelrain 1y ago
      These come to mind: 1. In 2017, one district court blocked Trump’s travel ban nationwide, while others upheld it. That led to confusion at airports and legal whiplash 2. In 2019, one judge blocked the public charge immigration rule nationwide, while others allowed it. The rule ended up applying in some States and not others 3. Multiple district courts issued conflicting nationwide injunctions on Title IX guidance for transgender students during the Obama and Trump years Those are just some Inconsistency is still possible. But the alternative was worse What we had was a race to the most favorable courtroom The fix isn’t unlimited injunctions. It’s reform and not stretching judicial power beyond what the law allows
      - majormajor 1y ago
        And what happened next in those cases? Was the inconsistency resolved? How is there less room for inconsistency now? If a judge has said five plaintiffs can play on a certain sports team in one jurisdiction, now the sports administrators need to know every ruling in every jurisdiction that their league functions in? What makes you think "reform" is going to happen here? Have you read much of the material pushing for increased executive power on the right? It's very clear that the goal is solely to remove impediments to stretch executive power to the point that executive power decides what the law allows.