7 ms·

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

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
    It’s easy to believe because they’re already doing similar things. The best publicized case was Rümeysa Öztürk, whose student visa was silently canceled over her exercise of protected 1st amendment rights. Normally, if there was a question about a visa they could handle the entire process in Massachusetts, which has a massive federal presence and where immigration cases have been handled without issues since about as long as we’ve had immigration law. Instead, the squad which abducted her off the street quickly took her through New Hampshire and Vermont on the way to Louisiana. There’s no reason to spend so much money on someone who isn’t a threat to anyone other than the Israeli government’s PR department unless the goal is to get them into a friendlier district before a judge can stop it.
- AnimalMuppet 1y ago
  No, the way this works is, now you have a circuit split (the 9th says one thing, the 5th says the opposite). So when the person who lost in the 5th circuit appeals, the Supreme Court takes it, and whatever they decide is binding on both the 5th and 9th circuits (and everyone else).
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    > the Supreme Court takes it This is not guaranteed. They don't have to take up a circuit split. They could just… leave it. Several are unresolved as we speak; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circuit_split#Examples_of_existing_circuit_splits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circuit_split#Examples_of_exis... Which leaves the Fifth Circuit a permanent loophole.
    - robocat 1y ago
      Lazy functional programming, human style.
- diogocp 1y ago
  There is no loophole. Defendants in the 5th circuit can appeal to the Supreme Court. That is one of the main roles of the Supreme Court: resolving circuit splits.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - theptip 1y ago
    In this scenario the precedent has already been set in the 5th, why would the Supreme Court hear it again? The 9th has nothing to do with an immigration hearing in the 5th, the individual’s personal history is irrelevant here. Matter of Rahman, 20 I&N Dec. 480 (BIA 1992) seems to cover this. (IANAL)
    - nradov 1y ago
      The parties involved can always petition the Supreme Court. They're free to take up any case even if there isn't a split between lower courts.
      - ceejayoz 1y ago
        They're also free not to take up the case, and leave the circuit split unresolved. If you want to leave the loophole open, that's a win.
    - _zagj 1y ago
      Because it conflicts with the holding in another circuit, called a "circuit split," which is one of the most common causes of the Supreme Court choosing to hear a case. The Supreme Court doesn't want forum shopping.
    - dragonwriter 1y ago
      > In this scenario the precedent has already been set in the 5th, why would the Supreme Court hear it again? A circuit split on an issue is one of the factors that traditionally weighs in favor of the Supreme Court hearing it, in the interests of uniformity of the law. If the Supreme Court likes the 5th Circuit rule, they take the case it make it the rule, period.
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  > It's only binding in that district. No, district court decisions are not binding precedent, not even in the district.
goodluckchuck 1y ago
Universal injunctions are superfluous. If the law says the government cannot do X, then who is a judge to command that the government not do X? That’s the legislature’s job. Judges have no authority to create rules saying people shall and shall not do certain things. That’s called passing a law. Similarly, when a party violates an injunction, who is the Judge to enforce his command? If it within a case or controversy between litigants, then that is one thing. When the judge they’re going to proactively punish someone any time the law as against anyone… that’s a purely executive function. In terms of efficiency, it’s more efficient. Those in favor of universal injunctions are saying there should be hundreds of judges all racing to rule over the government, and to have their opinions control in the abstract as to cases that aren’t even before them. If the government forces the same issue over and over there are plenty of remedies at hand: 1983 civil penalties against officers, sanctions against attorneys for frivolous arguments, and ultimately the court can hand the legislature everything it needs to impeach and remove a president by ruling that he / she is intentionally failing to enforce the law.
- unsnap_biceps 1y ago
  So the purpose of the judiciary branch is to interpret the laws. If a judge rules that the government is violating the law, you want the government to continue to be allowed to violate the law until the legislature convenes a hearing and rules and then what? The judiciary branch was able to rule on punishment for violating the rules, fines and jail time and what not. You would push all that to the legislature as well? Or would the legislature run a hearing and then ask the judiciary branch to pick the punishment and then have the legislature apply it? I just don't understand how you expect this to work unless the point is to make the judiciary branch entirely pointless (for government level check and balances).
  - tmountain 1y ago
    This is the same Supreme Court that granted the president immunity from any and all criminal charges as long they were made under the umbrella of the presidency. None of this is normal, and these are radical interpretations of the law explicitly designed to grant the president king like powers and reform the government into an authoritarian regime.
rufus_foreman 1y ago
[flagged]
dragonwriter 1y ago
> IANAL but isn't any ruling by even a lower court precedent? "Precedent" can include both binding authority and persuasive authority. Any ruling (and lots of things which aren't rulings, like scholarly treatises), can be persuasive precedent, but trial court decisions are not binding precedent, even in the district of the court that issued them. Only appellate court decisions are binding precedent, and only (basically) on courts subordinate to court making the decision.

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
  It’s easy to believe because they’re already doing similar things. The best publicized case was Rümeysa Öztürk, whose student visa was silently canceled over her exercise of protected 1st amendment rights. Normally, if there was a question about a visa they could handle the entire process in Massachusetts, which has a massive federal presence and where immigration cases have been handled without issues since about as long as we’ve had immigration law. Instead, the squad which abducted her off the street quickly took her through New Hampshire and Vermont on the way to Louisiana. There’s no reason to spend so much money on someone who isn’t a threat to anyone other than the Israeli government’s PR department unless the goal is to get them into a friendlier district before a judge can stop it.
AnimalMuppet 1y ago
No, the way this works is, now you have a circuit split (the 9th says one thing, the 5th says the opposite). So when the person who lost in the 5th circuit appeals, the Supreme Court takes it, and whatever they decide is binding on both the 5th and 9th circuits (and everyone else).
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  > the Supreme Court takes it This is not guaranteed. They don't have to take up a circuit split. They could just… leave it. Several are unresolved as we speak; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circuit_split#Examples_of_existing_circuit_splits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circuit_split#Examples_of_exis... Which leaves the Fifth Circuit a permanent loophole.
  - robocat 1y ago
    Lazy functional programming, human style.
diogocp 1y ago
There is no loophole. Defendants in the 5th circuit can appeal to the Supreme Court. That is one of the main roles of the Supreme Court: resolving circuit splits.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- theptip 1y ago
  In this scenario the precedent has already been set in the 5th, why would the Supreme Court hear it again? The 9th has nothing to do with an immigration hearing in the 5th, the individual’s personal history is irrelevant here. Matter of Rahman, 20 I&N Dec. 480 (BIA 1992) seems to cover this. (IANAL)
  - nradov 1y ago
    The parties involved can always petition the Supreme Court. They're free to take up any case even if there isn't a split between lower courts.
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      They're also free not to take up the case, and leave the circuit split unresolved. If you want to leave the loophole open, that's a win.
  - _zagj 1y ago
    Because it conflicts with the holding in another circuit, called a "circuit split," which is one of the most common causes of the Supreme Court choosing to hear a case. The Supreme Court doesn't want forum shopping.
  - dragonwriter 1y ago
    > In this scenario the precedent has already been set in the 5th, why would the Supreme Court hear it again? A circuit split on an issue is one of the factors that traditionally weighs in favor of the Supreme Court hearing it, in the interests of uniformity of the law. If the Supreme Court likes the 5th Circuit rule, they take the case it make it the rule, period.
dragonwriter 1y ago
> It's only binding in that district. No, district court decisions are not binding precedent, not even in the district.

goodluckchuck 1y ago

Universal injunctions are superfluous. If the law says the government cannot do X, then who is a judge to command that the government not do X? That’s the legislature’s job. Judges have no authority to create rules saying people shall and shall not do certain things. That’s called passing a law. Similarly, when a party violates an injunction, who is the Judge to enforce his command? If it within a case or controversy between litigants, then that is one thing. When the judge they’re going to proactively punish someone any time the law as against anyone… that’s a purely executive function. In terms of efficiency, it’s more efficient. Those in favor of universal injunctions are saying there should be hundreds of judges all racing to rule over the government, and to have their opinions control in the abstract as to cases that aren’t even before them. If the government forces the same issue over and over there are plenty of remedies at hand: 1983 civil penalties against officers, sanctions against attorneys for frivolous arguments, and ultimately the court can hand the legislature everything it needs to impeach and remove a president by ruling that he / she is intentionally failing to enforce the law.

unsnap_biceps 1y ago
So the purpose of the judiciary branch is to interpret the laws. If a judge rules that the government is violating the law, you want the government to continue to be allowed to violate the law until the legislature convenes a hearing and rules and then what? The judiciary branch was able to rule on punishment for violating the rules, fines and jail time and what not. You would push all that to the legislature as well? Or would the legislature run a hearing and then ask the judiciary branch to pick the punishment and then have the legislature apply it? I just don't understand how you expect this to work unless the point is to make the judiciary branch entirely pointless (for government level check and balances).
- tmountain 1y ago
  This is the same Supreme Court that granted the president immunity from any and all criminal charges as long they were made under the umbrella of the presidency. None of this is normal, and these are radical interpretations of the law explicitly designed to grant the president king like powers and reform the government into an authoritarian regime.

rufus_foreman 1y ago

[flagged]

dragonwriter 1y ago

> IANAL but isn't any ruling by even a lower court precedent? "Precedent" can include both binding authority and persuasive authority. Any ruling (and lots of things which aren't rulings, like scholarly treatises), can be persuasive precedent, but trial court decisions are not binding precedent, even in the district of the court that issued them. Only appellate court decisions are binding precedent, and only (basically) on courts subordinate to court making the decision.