6 ms·

But, we did get conflicting nationwide rulings from different district courts, which encouraged forum shopping and rushed litigation. Federal law is national, b

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
        No, all of these cases are not resolved to this day Title IX issue is not resolved. Public charge rule resolved itself because the Biden admin rescinded the rule. But not before creating mass confusion. Trump travel ban was resolved by SCOTUS as valid once Trump modified the ban The point is that nationwide injunctions from different district courts created that chaos in the first place, often forcing rushed Supreme Court intervention just to untangle conflicting orders
        ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
        I don't see any of the "chaos" you're talking about: the examples you give are of the system working as expected.
  - magicalist 1y ago
    > Whether you were personally hurt isn’t the point. Conflicting nationwide rulings from different judges created legal chaos and undermined consistency So now you can be a US citizen when in New York but not while in Kentucky. Sure to cause no chaos.
    - firesteelrain 1y ago
      Huh? Federal laws apply everywhere. The rulings just means an injunction only affects the parties in that case or a certified class and not everyone everywhere automatically
      - anonymars 1y ago
        Yeah, so when you say "federal laws apply everywhere", what happens when one state sues that it's unconstitutional and another doesn't? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44401294 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44401294
        firesteelrain 1y ago
        Then enforcement is paused for the parties in that case. Other courts may rule differently until the issue is resolved higher up
        vkou 1y ago
        The whole strategy of the federal government with this is to never resolve the issue higher up. You keep saying that the issue will be resolved higher up. How? There's no mechanism for it. The winner of a case can't kick it up to higher courts.
        firesteelrain 1y ago
        Follow the process like requiring coordinated multi-district litigation or pushing for appellate consolidation This just puts the burden on challengers to build stronger cases, not shortcut national impact through procedural overreach.

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
        No, all of these cases are not resolved to this day Title IX issue is not resolved. Public charge rule resolved itself because the Biden admin rescinded the rule. But not before creating mass confusion. Trump travel ban was resolved by SCOTUS as valid once Trump modified the ban The point is that nationwide injunctions from different district courts created that chaos in the first place, often forcing rushed Supreme Court intervention just to untangle conflicting orders
        ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
        I don't see any of the "chaos" you're talking about: the examples you give are of the system working as expected.
- magicalist 1y ago
  > Whether you were personally hurt isn’t the point. Conflicting nationwide rulings from different judges created legal chaos and undermined consistency So now you can be a US citizen when in New York but not while in Kentucky. Sure to cause no chaos.
  - firesteelrain 1y ago
    Huh? Federal laws apply everywhere. The rulings just means an injunction only affects the parties in that case or a certified class and not everyone everywhere automatically
    - anonymars 1y ago
      Yeah, so when you say "federal laws apply everywhere", what happens when one state sues that it's unconstitutional and another doesn't? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44401294 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44401294
      - firesteelrain 1y ago
        Then enforcement is paused for the parties in that case. Other courts may rule differently until the issue is resolved higher up
        vkou 1y ago
        The whole strategy of the federal government with this is to never resolve the issue higher up. You keep saying that the issue will be resolved higher up. How? There's no mechanism for it. The winner of a case can't kick it up to higher courts.
        firesteelrain 1y ago
        Follow the process like requiring coordinated multi-district litigation or pushing for appellate consolidation This just puts the burden on challengers to build stronger cases, not shortcut national impact through procedural overreach.