Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 878 posts

Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders

#131

Post by shams93 »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #30
drdaeman wrote: post #10

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf Justice Sotomayor dissents: > Instead, the Government says, it should be able to apply the Citizenship Order (whose legality it does not defend) to everyone except the plaintiffs who filed this lawsuit. If that’s the case, I’m curious if it could be fixed with a class action, so everyone (or everyone born in the US) is a plaintiff? If that’s legally a thing.

>class action What you describe is voting We’re in this mess because people are not interested enough, educated enough, or engaged enough politically to make their position explicit to drive the direction of legislation and executive action. Citizens of The United States have every tool available to to work together to shape their communities. The reality is the overwhelming majority do not do that, and you can come…

There is also the damage done by the Supreme Court ending the Voting Rights Act, had the act been in place in 2024, Kamalah would have won by a landslide. Millions of minority voters were targeted for disenfranchisement in 2024.

Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders

#132

Post by czbot »

mannyv wrote: post #106
redczar wrote: post #52

According to Justice Barrett a child born tomorrow in one district in the United States will not have U.S. citizenship but a child born in another one will. Will ICE deport the “noncitizens” born in one district while being prevented from doing so in districts that happen to have a judge that issues an injunction? This ruling is idiotic even if you are generally opposed to nationwide injunctions. Birthright citizensh…

[flagged]

Before today’s ruling nationwide injunctions were granted. Not sure how you can now claim “that’s how the court system works” when nationwide injunctions were fine before today’s ruling.

A President can now issue blatantly unconstitutional executive orders and the burden for obtaining relief will rest on each individual person (or small class of people). Prior to today rules/laws that caused harm could be temporarily prevented from being enforced while the matter is litigated. Now parties that will be harmed are much more likely to be harmed before the matter is resolved. This is a sad state of affairs.

If the next President issues an order confiscating guns from people the champions of today’s ruling will want nationwide relief while the matter is litigated.

If someone is going to be deported they can file a case and stop the deportation.

And you accuse OP of not paying attention!

Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders

#133

Post by eschaton »

Tadpole9181 wrote: post #111
matthewowen wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem (which Sotomayor raises in her dissent, pages 94 and 95 of the PDF) is that it may never reach the supreme court: > There is a serious question, moreover, whether this Court will ever get the chance to rule on the constitutionality of a policy like the Citizenship Order. Contra, ante, at 6 (opinion of KAVANAUGH, J.) (“[T]he losing parties in the courts of appeals will regularly come to this Court in matte…

Wait, doesn't this just... End the constitution as a whole? So long as the current executive wants some unconstitutional thing, they get that unconstitutional thing in every state on their side in perpetuity? The constitution is now... per-litigant?

That’s the end goal. And to take over the other states too.

Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders

#134

Post by ceejayoz »

timr wrote: post #130
ceejayoz wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, there's always some reason it's different when Dems are President with this crew. You're right, though, it is different; birthright citizenship is spelled out, very clearly, in the Constitution . It's an even plainer wrong. It's Calvinball.

[flagged]

Of course there isn't.

There's no written rule that the boss's son is gonna get the cushy VP slot, but everyone knows it.

Where was SCOTUS when https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_O%27Connor issued all his nationwide injunctions?

Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders

#136

Post by stefan_ »

paulvnickerson wrote: post #127

This had to happen. The state of affairs prior to this ruling is that any of 700 district judges could unilaterally block the president from exercising his authority under the constitution pending a review, including matters of national security, based on their own subjective politics. It broke the proper functioning of the government. This restores a proper functioning balance of powers.

Thats why the government can just skip ahead and call the Supreme Court, and then the Supreme Court lifts it because apparently being unable to do illegal things is Irreparable Harm (actually makes a mockery of the concept of course).

In the meantime, when I sue John Doe and get an injunction, they are enjoined from their conduct everywhere; but when I sue the government, it should only apply to me? Makes no sense.

Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders

#137

Post by acoustics »

The majority seems too trusting that the government will appeal its losses.

Strategically, the government could enact a policy affecting a million people, be sued, lose, provide relief to the named plaintiffs, and then not appeal the decision. The upper courts never get the opportunity to make binding precedent, the lower courts do not get to extend relief to non-plaintiffs, and the government gets to enforce its illegal policies on the vast majority of people who did not (likely could not) sue.

Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders

#138

Post by tiahura »

jfengel wrote: post #87
hakunin wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this often gets confused. Voting a president in doesn't give them a blank mandate to do whatever they want, such as break the law. And knowingly doing things that might not get approved by courts, but veiling it in a "novel legal theory" disguise is still breaking the law. Just because slow and thorough processes need to take place to adjudicate these actions doesn't mean that these actions aren't worth adjud…

According to the Supreme Court, that's exactly what it does. The President simply isn't accountable. I would not have thought that this is what the Constitution says, but the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution says. That's not in the Constitution, either, but they've appropriated that job for two centuries, so we let them get away with it. The "it's not illegal if the President does it" part…

Incorrect. Congress has a multitude of means to check the president.

Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders

#139

Post by burkaman »

timr wrote: post #113
jfengel wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the Supreme Court, that's exactly what it does. The President simply isn't accountable. I would not have thought that this is what the Constitution says, but the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution says. That's not in the Constitution, either, but they've appropriated that job for two centuries, so we let them get away with it. The "it's not illegal if the President does it" part…

Or, more charitably: the Supreme Court has says that the president has this authority, in this specific area, and your characterization of this as "breaking the law" is not correct. Edit: actually , even that is overstating it. This is an extremely narrow ruling that is mainly about the powers of federal judges. It's the sort of ruling that the "other side" will trumpet as settled law when they're the ones in power a…

I think that comment is referring to Trump v. United States, where the court said that a president cannot be held accountable for using a Constitutional authority to break the law. It is very literally "a blank mandate to break the law".

For example, a president is granted authority to command the military and issue pardons. They have absolute immunity for any act performed using these authorities, including illegal acts such as assassinating or deporting a political opponent or accepting bribes in return for pardons. This is not a matter of opinion or a controversial interpretation, these consequences were discussed during the case and in the opinion, and the court accepted them.

Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders

#140

Post by Retric »

rayiner wrote: post #98
ada1981 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is some compelling research from Princeton that for 90%+ of the American voting population, there opinions have zero impact on federal policy. It's all lobby driven money. “The preferences of the average American appear to have only a miniscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.” https://act.represent.us/sign/problempoll-fba And they actively vote against the will of their cons…

That’s not quite an accurate description of the Princeton Study. What the study actually shows, if I’m thinking of the correct one, is that for the most part average americans agree with the elite. The results of the study are driven by the fact that when elites and average americans disagree, the politicians tend to side with the elites. A prime example of this is the immigration system. https://www.nytimes.com/2024…

> is that for the most part average americans agree with the elite. The results of the study are driven by the fact that when elites and average americans disagree, the politicians tend to side with the elites.

The case when everyone agrees doesn’t tell you anything. It’s only when people disagree that you can find who has actual power and in this case the general public has effectively zero actual meaningful power day to day.

Systematic voter suppression plus gerrymandering etc may win you rigged elections, but ultimately voting isn’t about the system in place it’s avoidance unrest. We’re entering uncharted territory with how strongly people disagree with what the government is doing, which is where the general public actually has a say, namely by destroying the existing power structures rather than voting. It’s not even a question of insurrection, not having kids plus 60’s style dropping out at scale is ruinous.

Post reply on HN