3 ms·
Unfortunately, the courts can largely only address harm. If someone's data actually gets stolen, or if a specific law is broken, the courts are the government a
by shadowgovt 1y ago
Unfortunately, the courts can largely only address harm. If someone's data actually gets stolen, or if a specific law is broken, the courts are the government arm to address it.
Avoiding ending up in court is the purpose of agency policy, and... gestures widely at the current state of the United States Executive regarding policy adherence.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 1y agoIt is absolutely the case that courts can address potential harm before it occurs. There have been already many cases rising up where people sue to stop government actions because if taken, they would cause harm. But... the current SCOTUS is all onboard the dictator train (unitary executive theory) and have stayed lower court orders on the basis that the president would have irreparable harm if orders, even unconstitutional ones, are not carried out immediately.
- shadowgovt 1y agoCan you give an example of the kind of prior restraint you're thinking of? What you're describing is an injunction, and in general, courts are loathe to hand them out (this one notwithstanding). It happens, but the bar is generally extremely high. Even prior to Trump, I wouldn't expect one for this category of executive operation for the same reason that I wouldn't expect one if someone complained that the government was physically transferring PII in an agent's car instead of a Brinks truck.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 1y agoBirthright citizenship was one. An injunction was granted, then stayed by SCOTUS. It was only when a new class action lawsuit was filed that kept it going. Another is the NIH funding, where lower courts agreed and SCOTUS over-turned. https://www.npr.org/2025/08/21/g-s1-84441/supreme-court-nih-grants https://www.npr.org/2025/08/21/g-s1-84441/supreme-court-nih-...
- shadowgovt 1y agoPrecisely. That's two examples of SCOTUS restraining the lower courts from imposing constraints before harm had happened. That's what I mean regarding the court generally not having the authority to act preemptively.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 1y agoThese were actually examples of courts imposing blocks to prevent harm, but the SCOTUS over-riding them, without any legal justification! Consider the same SCOTUS and its block on Biden's student loan relief. A notable example because the president has clear authority to waive or modify the loans. But it was blocked.
- anigbrowl 1y agoYou're correct, but this policy is to enshrine a legal doctrine (rather than a statutory requirement) that harm must be allowed to occur - apparently without regard to the predictability or scope of the harm. It's like a trolley problem where one track has a large number of people about to be crushed by the trolley car, while the other track is completely empty - and SCOTUS arguing that the lever can't be pulled to divert the trolley because the accident hasn't happened yet.