3 ms·

> Ironically, imv, I think in this case, they didnt. This was, imv, a case where a universal injunctions was actually within the power of the disctict court --

> Ironically, imv, I think in this case, they didnt. This was, imv, a case where a universal injunctions was actually within the power of the disctict court -- because (and here Sotomayor is correct) the states were being obligated to take on burdens that "crossed state lines" and a complete remedy to relieve them of these burdens actually requires a universal injunction. So, imv, under the history of what equitable remedies are supposed to do, this would be one rare case where the action of the courts could be legally defensible. > However, the SC was extremely fed up with district courts sending inumerable number of cases their way -- trigger happy judges at the distict level deciding they're going to rule for the whole US in a federal system. So, by this point, they've tried many times to stop it, and it hadnt worked. ...so you were lauding a "Some of you may die, but it's a sacrifice I am willing to make" opinion? We're talking citizenship here, in a time when the executive branch is deporting people as hastily as possible to prevent judicial review. But the supreme court was "extremely fed up" and took a stand...against universal injunctions. How "non-hysterical" of them.

mjburgess 1y ago
This judgement has nothing to do with citizenship, and there's yet no reason to suppose citizenship is under threat from the EO as a result of this judgment. Many states will have state-wide injunctions, and there will be a nation-wide class action suit to go thru the courts, and if there's any executive policy on this, it will receive judicial review. The SC will also, whilst this is going on, intervene an basically issue a universal injunction as soon as the executive takes any issue whatsoever with this process.
- magicalist 1y ago
  > This judgement has nothing to do with citizenship, and there's yet no reason to suppose citizenship is under threat from the EO as a result of this judgment. The executive order literally orders agencies not to recognize citizenship for children born in the US after February 19th to parents that aren't citizens or permanent residents. That can now proceed if you weren't personally covered by the three existing injunctions, so not sure what you're talking about.
  - mjburgess 1y ago
    It cannot proceed for 30 days, in which time they can file a class action case -- and states which want to challenge this can still obtain state-wide injunctions. Neither has happened only because of the UI, not because the UI itself is required to challenge this. And when this has a policy implementation it can be reviewed by the courts under the APA and that policy declated unconstitutional. So no, this ruling says nothing about the executive order. An K's concurrence explains all the ways the order can still be challenged.

mjburgess 1y ago

This judgement has nothing to do with citizenship, and there's yet no reason to suppose citizenship is under threat from the EO as a result of this judgment. Many states will have state-wide injunctions, and there will be a nation-wide class action suit to go thru the courts, and if there's any executive policy on this, it will receive judicial review. The SC will also, whilst this is going on, intervene an basically issue a universal injunction as soon as the executive takes any issue whatsoever with this process.

magicalist 1y ago
> This judgement has nothing to do with citizenship, and there's yet no reason to suppose citizenship is under threat from the EO as a result of this judgment. The executive order literally orders agencies not to recognize citizenship for children born in the US after February 19th to parents that aren't citizens or permanent residents. That can now proceed if you weren't personally covered by the three existing injunctions, so not sure what you're talking about.
- mjburgess 1y ago
  It cannot proceed for 30 days, in which time they can file a class action case -- and states which want to challenge this can still obtain state-wide injunctions. Neither has happened only because of the UI, not because the UI itself is required to challenge this. And when this has a policy implementation it can be reviewed by the courts under the APA and that policy declated unconstitutional. So no, this ruling says nothing about the executive order. An K's concurrence explains all the ways the order can still be challenged.