3 ms·

Well in that case, that is amusing.

rayiner 1y ago
What makes you say Trump v. Casa is “flimsy?” The Supreme Court addressed injunctions against the executive in Marbury in 1803. Wikipedia’s write up cites scholars that say federal courts issued between 0 and a dozen nationwide injunctions in the first 175 years of the republic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_injunction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_injunction. The wikipedia write up is actually quite good on this. McMahon v. New York is obviously correct. A preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary and drastic” remedy requiring a showing that the plaintiff is likely to succeed in the merits: https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/civil-resource-manual-214-injunctions https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/civil-resource-manual-21.... The argument that federal courts can supervise a reduction in force where the individual firings aren’t themselves illegal (e.g. race based) is a tenuous argument. Besides, what’s the irreparable harm? Being fired is one of the classic examples of something that can be remedied by after a trial with reinstatement and backpay.
- brendoelfrendo 1y ago
  For Trump v. Casa, I'm going to set aside the argument that "nationwide injunctions are bad" because it's not really relevant here. The court has had plenty of opportunities to shut down nationwide injunctions, 14 during the Biden administration according to your linked Wikipedia article, and I think you need to consider what it means that the court only now decides to close that door during this administration and this case, specifically. With regards to McMahon v. New York, what makes you think that the plaintiff is unlikely to succeed in the merits? The court can absolutely take into consideration the intent of the Trump administration and McMahon as his secretary to illegally shutter the Department of Education. On the one hand, you have the executive branch's ability to oversee a reduction in force; on the other, you have the executive reducing force as an end-run around the duty charged to them by law. If the "unitary executive theory" means that the executive can discharge duties they are bound by law to execute, then the Constitution is meaningless (as Sotomayor cites at the very beginning of her dissent, Article 2 section 3 charges the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"). Your argument that irreparable harm extends only to the staff being fired is also naively narrow; the states brought the suit, not the staff of the DoEd. The states argue--correctly--that if the Department cannot carry out its duties, then a vast array of students and teachers that rely on services funded or administered by the DoEd would be harmed. It seems batshit to argue that the harms done to the executive by temporarily curtailing that power outweigh the harms that will be done to an uncertain but certainly vast number of people in the interim. It's worth noting that, in this case, providing relief simply means that the government must maintain the status quo for a few months or however long it takes for the case to work through the courts. Restoring someone's job with back pay is sufficient when one person is fired. It is not sufficient when the executive has eliminated 50% of a statutorily-mandated department of the federal government with an eye to cut more.
- ilove196884 1y ago
  I do wonder about your opinions on the Impoundment control act. Should the president withhold money allocated by Congress?

What makes you say Trump v. Casa is “flimsy?” The Supreme Court addressed injunctions against the executive in Marbury in 1803. Wikipedia’s write up cites scholars that say federal courts issued between 0 and a dozen nationwide injunctions in the first 175 years of the republic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_injunction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_injunction. The wikipedia write up is actually quite good on this. McMahon v. New York is obviously correct. A preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary and drastic” remedy requiring a showing that the plaintiff is likely to succeed in the merits: https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/civil-resource-manual-214-injunctions https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/civil-resource-manual-21.... The argument that federal courts can supervise a reduction in force where the individual firings aren’t themselves illegal (e.g. race based) is a tenuous argument. Besides, what’s the irreparable harm? Being fired is one of the classic examples of something that can be remedied by after a trial with reinstatement and backpay.

brendoelfrendo 1y ago
For Trump v. Casa, I'm going to set aside the argument that "nationwide injunctions are bad" because it's not really relevant here. The court has had plenty of opportunities to shut down nationwide injunctions, 14 during the Biden administration according to your linked Wikipedia article, and I think you need to consider what it means that the court only now decides to close that door during this administration and this case, specifically. With regards to McMahon v. New York, what makes you think that the plaintiff is unlikely to succeed in the merits? The court can absolutely take into consideration the intent of the Trump administration and McMahon as his secretary to illegally shutter the Department of Education. On the one hand, you have the executive branch's ability to oversee a reduction in force; on the other, you have the executive reducing force as an end-run around the duty charged to them by law. If the "unitary executive theory" means that the executive can discharge duties they are bound by law to execute, then the Constitution is meaningless (as Sotomayor cites at the very beginning of her dissent, Article 2 section 3 charges the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"). Your argument that irreparable harm extends only to the staff being fired is also naively narrow; the states brought the suit, not the staff of the DoEd. The states argue--correctly--that if the Department cannot carry out its duties, then a vast array of students and teachers that rely on services funded or administered by the DoEd would be harmed. It seems batshit to argue that the harms done to the executive by temporarily curtailing that power outweigh the harms that will be done to an uncertain but certainly vast number of people in the interim. It's worth noting that, in this case, providing relief simply means that the government must maintain the status quo for a few months or however long it takes for the case to work through the courts. Restoring someone's job with back pay is sufficient when one person is fired. It is not sufficient when the executive has eliminated 50% of a statutorily-mandated department of the federal government with an eye to cut more.
ilove196884 1y ago
I do wonder about your opinions on the Impoundment control act. Should the president withhold money allocated by Congress?