4 ms·

So... no nationwide injunctions except from SCOTUS? Meaning the executive can just keep deporting without due process or honoring birthrights, so long as they

So... no nationwide injunctions except from SCOTUS? Meaning the executive can just keep deporting without due process or honoring birthrights, so long as they back down for anyone with the means to challenge it. (And their lawyer is fast enough, and knows which district they were spirited off to in the middle of the night.)

firesteelrain 1y ago
The idea of a nationwide injunction was not originally envisioned. It’s newish. Only Supreme Court in a court-sense can check the Executive. Congress can also check the Executive. Illegal aliens have less due process by law.
- sterlind 1y ago
  the Constitution entitles all persons in the US to have due process, including aliens: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-5/removal-of-aliens-who-have-entered-the-united-states https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-5/r... reversing that case law would be a bit much even for Alito, I think.
  - firesteelrain 1y ago
    Not exactly Non-citizens in removal proceedings get civil hearings, with fewer procedural protection. Expedited removal allows certain undocumented immigrants to be deported without ever seeing a judge, unless they claim asylum or prove long-term presence. Courts have upheld that due process is contextual. It is not “one-size-fits-all” So yes, undocumented immigrants have a constitutional floor of protections but not the same ceiling as citizens or green card holders
    - paulryanrogers 1y ago
      If you get deported before you even have a chance to prove your citizenship, then it's a distinction without a difference. Be sure to carry your papers with you at all times!
      - firesteelrain 1y ago
        If someone is deported before they can prove their citizenship, then due process hasn’t worked, and that’s a serious failure The distinction I was trying to make isn’t that undocumented people have no rights and it’s just that the process they’re entitled to is different in scope There are safeguards that could be added such as access to interpreters, better identity verification, etc But the answer can’t be local injunctions which is what this entire SCOTUS decision was about Congress could budget and pass a law to fix things. It’s not up to the Executive and Legislative Branch.
        paulryanrogers 1y ago
        > Congress could budget and pass a law to fix things. It’s not up to the Executive and Legislative Branch. The executive swears to uphold the constitution. Not write EOs that clearly violate it, then strategically drop appeals when they lose, so as to undermine the constitution for everyone without the means to dispute their case.
        firesteelrain 1y ago
        If an EO clearly violates it, it should be challenged and struck down. My point isn’t that the executive can act with impunity. It is that the judiciary must do so within its own constitutional limits. If the executive is dropping appeals to avoid nationwide precedent, that’s a serious problem, but the long-term fix isn’t local injunctions See my point?
        vkou 1y ago
        > If an EO clearly violates it, it should be challenged and struck down Fortunately a thousand years of common law have figured out how to deal with this sort of thing, while those challenges are ongoing. It's called an injunction. It's issued when there's a strong case for an EO violating it, and is done when the violation, if allowed unabated, will cause irreparable harm to the the victims. The legal process hinges on preventing irreparable harm while a case is being litigated. If it didn't, absolutely horrific things could be done to you under the color of law, and the people doing them would be incentivized to drag the cases out for as long as possible. This is textbook, black-on-white, criminality from the executive.

firesteelrain 1y ago

The idea of a nationwide injunction was not originally envisioned. It’s newish. Only Supreme Court in a court-sense can check the Executive. Congress can also check the Executive. Illegal aliens have less due process by law.

sterlind 1y ago
the Constitution entitles all persons in the US to have due process, including aliens: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-5/removal-of-aliens-who-have-entered-the-united-states https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-5/r... reversing that case law would be a bit much even for Alito, I think.
- firesteelrain 1y ago
  Not exactly Non-citizens in removal proceedings get civil hearings, with fewer procedural protection. Expedited removal allows certain undocumented immigrants to be deported without ever seeing a judge, unless they claim asylum or prove long-term presence. Courts have upheld that due process is contextual. It is not “one-size-fits-all” So yes, undocumented immigrants have a constitutional floor of protections but not the same ceiling as citizens or green card holders
  - paulryanrogers 1y ago
    If you get deported before you even have a chance to prove your citizenship, then it's a distinction without a difference. Be sure to carry your papers with you at all times!
    - firesteelrain 1y ago
      If someone is deported before they can prove their citizenship, then due process hasn’t worked, and that’s a serious failure The distinction I was trying to make isn’t that undocumented people have no rights and it’s just that the process they’re entitled to is different in scope There are safeguards that could be added such as access to interpreters, better identity verification, etc But the answer can’t be local injunctions which is what this entire SCOTUS decision was about Congress could budget and pass a law to fix things. It’s not up to the Executive and Legislative Branch.
      - paulryanrogers 1y ago
        > Congress could budget and pass a law to fix things. It’s not up to the Executive and Legislative Branch. The executive swears to uphold the constitution. Not write EOs that clearly violate it, then strategically drop appeals when they lose, so as to undermine the constitution for everyone without the means to dispute their case.
        firesteelrain 1y ago
        If an EO clearly violates it, it should be challenged and struck down. My point isn’t that the executive can act with impunity. It is that the judiciary must do so within its own constitutional limits. If the executive is dropping appeals to avoid nationwide precedent, that’s a serious problem, but the long-term fix isn’t local injunctions See my point?
        vkou 1y ago
        > If an EO clearly violates it, it should be challenged and struck down Fortunately a thousand years of common law have figured out how to deal with this sort of thing, while those challenges are ongoing. It's called an injunction. It's issued when there's a strong case for an EO violating it, and is done when the violation, if allowed unabated, will cause irreparable harm to the the victims. The legal process hinges on preventing irreparable harm while a case is being litigated. If it didn't, absolutely horrific things could be done to you under the color of law, and the people doing them would be incentivized to drag the cases out for as long as possible. This is textbook, black-on-white, criminality from the executive.