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

231–240 of 878 posts

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

#231

Post by ceejayoz »

Amezarak wrote: post #215
magicalist wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's misleading to simply announce it's guaranteed. Let's not pretend all assertions are equally worth entertaining. Maybe it's "misleading" if you're Stephen Miller, but every court case where it's ever been heard and the legislative record at the time of adopting the 14th amendment show that citizenship is guaranteed. The Trump administration hasn't even raised it in appeals!

The author of the clause didn't think it applied to the children of aliens, so it doesn't seem crazy to me. > Howard said that the clause "is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States."[30] He added that citizenship "wil…

> The author of the clause…

That'd be a deeply ironic thing to cite as evidence for this court.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textualism

"Textualism is a formalist theory in which the interpretation of the law is based exclusively on the ordinary meaning of the legal text, where no consideration is given to non-textual sources, such as intention of the law when passed, the problem it was intended to remedy, or significant questions regarding the justice or rectitude of the law."

Legislative intent didn't save the Voting Rights Act, or the EPA.

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

#232

Post by lostapathy »

firesteelrain wrote: post #216
vkou wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The state of affairs is that: 1. The executive is doing something illegal to hundreds of thousands of people. 2. Dozens and hundreds of people sue them. 3. The executive loses in court. 4. The executive does not appeal to the supreme court the cases it lost. 5. Thus, no binding precedent that stops the illegal action in #1 is set. This is actual lawless lunacy, and this enshrines it as SOP going forward. Is this the…

I get the concern, but this ruling doesn’t stop courts from checking illegal executive action. It just says injunctions should only apply to the actual parties in the case. Nationwide injunctions were never clearly authorized by statute, and letting any one of 700 district judges block a federal policy everywhere created chaos and forum shopping. If a policy is truly unconstitutional, the proper path is a class actio…

> It just says injunctions should only apply to the actual parties in the case.

So every person wronged by the government should sue individually?

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

#233

Post by firesteelrain »

vkou wrote: post #227
firesteelrain wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get the concern, but this ruling doesn’t stop courts from checking illegal executive action. It just says injunctions should only apply to the actual parties in the case. Nationwide injunctions were never clearly authorized by statute, and letting any one of 700 district judges block a federal policy everywhere created chaos and forum shopping. If a policy is truly unconstitutional, the proper path is a class actio…

> Not giving individual judges a veto over national law. It's not a veto, it's a delay until appeal. If the lower court is wrong, SCOTUS has never had any issue with settling the question. The fact that the government isn't appealing means that they know they can't win on appeal, and what they are doing is illegal.

Right, it’s a delay, not a final veto. But when that delay applies nationwide, it functions like a veto until SCOTUS steps in, which can take months or years

If the executive avoids appeals to dodge precedent, that’s a separate (and valid) concern. But the solution isn’t to stretch injunction power beyond its legal limits

It is about who gets to block national policy for everyone, based on one local case. That kind of sweeping relief was never authorized by Congress

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

#234

Post by 20after4 »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #204
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]

What are you even talking about? I can't make any sense of your argument.

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

#235

Post by esseph »

stateaffairs wrote: post #158
vkou wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The state of affairs is that: 1. The executive is doing something illegal to hundreds of thousands of people. 2. Dozens and hundreds of people sue them. 3. The executive loses in court. 4. The executive does not appeal to the supreme court the cases it lost. 5. Thus, no binding precedent that stops the illegal action in #1 is set. This is actual lawless lunacy, and this enshrines it as SOP going forward. Is this the…

[flagged]

Its "politicized" when it's something someone doesn't like.

It can't just be, I don't know, a plain reading of the fucking law.

It's time to Balkanize.

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

#236

Post by timr »

ceejayoz wrote: post #218
timr wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, that's very cynical and maybe you'll be right, but for now the California AG agrees with me. Per a quote in the WSJ [1]: > California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a co-plaintiff, looked for a silver lining: Red states, which sought universal injunctions to stymie Biden administration policies, would encounter obstacles pursuing that strategy under a future Democratic president, he said. Call me a crazy, glass-ha…

> California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a co-plaintiff, looked for a silver lining… Sure, and Susan Collins thinks Trump "learned his lesson" with his first impeachment. Looking for the silver lining is what we sometimes call "cope". He lost. As a politician, he's obliged to put some spin on it. > It's been rather maddening that circuit court judges basically push every decision to the Supreme Court. It is. This sor…

Well, if we're predicting the future, here's mine: since they're already basically telegraphing it (and also because it's pretty clear-cut), I predict that they'll overturn the whole thing in a future case, and then the left will be crowing about how mean-ol Mr. Trump was taught a lesson in capital-D Democracy by our powerful system of government.

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

#238

Post by everforward »

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.

From my reading and understanding, they still can, it just involves an _immense_ amount more paperwork. The ruling is basically that judges can only provide injunctions for the named party in a case, not universal injunctions. So instead of one injunction, each person impacted by the EO will have to file for their own injunction. Which will likely be granted due to similar injunctions already granted.

So it reads to me like we've ended up in a similar spot, but with the requirement that an insane amount of paperwork happens.

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

#240

Post by elAhmo »

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.

Not a single decision so far was related to national security. The checks and balances exist and they are/were working, and this is an attempt to circumvent that.
Post reply on HN