US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders • Hacker News Board

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

#331

Post by firesteelrain » Fri, Jun 27, 2025, 10:27 PM UTC

majormajor wrote: post #313

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…

> 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. What chaos that would be worse than the chaos of jurisdictional fracturing they're asking for here and the possibility to not let cases escalate to courts with supposed national jurisdiction? Rulings were stayed all the time . The existence o…

But, we did get conflicting nationwide rulings from different district courts, which encouraged forum shopping and rushed litigation. Federal law is national, but relief in equity has always been limited to the parties before the court unless a class is certified

> The existence of a national injunction seems built in to the job of a federal judge since federal law is definitionally national

That’s a clever line.

See, there is a difference between saying “this law is unconstitutional” and saying “this law is blocked for everyone, everywhere.”

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

#332

Post by benlivengood » Fri, Jun 27, 2025, 10:27 PM UTC

laughing_man wrote: post #306

scarface_74 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The President is literally taking away citizenship. What can be more fundamental than that?

Birthright citizenship was never enacted into law. It was a policy change by the State Department early in the 20th century. Since Trump controls the State Dept, has the power to make the change - Congress needs to deal with this.

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/

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

#333

Post by majormajor » Fri, Jun 27, 2025, 10:27 PM UTC

mjburgess wrote: post #322

majormajor wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that case than this change seems entirely pointless. Obviously there are plenty of states that are highly partisan in either direction. So it seems like the judicious thing to do would've been like "the status quo is fine, rulings that higher courts think are egregious can still be stayed pending appeal." It's hard to believe it's so innocuous given that (a) it is such a new approach to the issue for a not-new fea…

The SC was asked to consider a relatively narrow question of what the limits on equitable remindies in the discrict courts are. In a significant majority of cases they've exceeded their clear authority on anything like a plausible reading of what non-constitutional courts are supposed to do. Ironically, imv, I think in this case, they didnt. This was, imv, a case where a universal injunctions was actually within the…

> because (and here Sotomayor is correct) the states were being obligated to take on burdens that "crossed state lines" and a complete remedy to relieve them of these burdens actually requires a universal injunction

> However, the SC was extremely fed up with district courts sending inumerable number of cases their way

Well hold on then.

So you think the Court was wrong in this case? That they were just on tilt? Because if this case is a case for a universal injunction then does the executive have standing to ask about that issue here?

But if Sotomayor is correct on the relevance of a universal injunction here, then why is your "non-hysterical reaction" defending the decision instead?

---

I also find it hard to agree with "judges are creating problems" vs "an increasingly aggresive executive is creating problems." The legislature hasn't been able to do much for a long time because the splits are so close, so presidents try to do more directly. Is enabling that despite how closely split the legislature is ANYTHING like in line with how the US government system is supposed to work?

Cause really, awww, they have more cases than they used to? Welcome to the computer driven future, it sucks for all of us, don't make us suffer because you're tired of it.

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

#334

Post by gigatexal » Fri, Jun 27, 2025, 10:28 PM UTC

It’s Trump’s world we are just living in it (as NPCs).

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

#335

Post by speakfreely » Fri, Jun 27, 2025, 10:28 PM UTC

lelandbatey wrote: post #272

indil wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your news sources have woefully misinformed you. Trump's argument is that it's not enough to be born here, you have to also be a charge of the country: "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Note the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Trump's argument is that people born…

If you are born and live in the US, how could you possibly not be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States? Likewise, if you are born in the US to tourist parents who then leave the United States with you , how exactly are you supposed to "collect benefits"? And even if you are "collecting benefits", to be a citizen you'd have to also be paying your taxes, which should entitle you to said benefits. Where ex…

> And even if you are "collecting benefits", to be a citizen you'd have to also be paying your taxes, which should entitle you to said benefits.

According to the SF Chronicle, about 72 million US households (40% of the population) paid no federal income tax in 2022. I don't have exact numbers but I doubt anyone would dispute that public benefits flow disproportionately to those 72 million households for obvious reasons. So the cause and effect of being a citizen and paying taxes is very tenuous.

> Where exactly is the unsustainable part of this?

If it's unsustainable, then someone should propose a constitutional amendment to fix it.

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

#336

Post by Balooga » Fri, Jun 27, 2025, 10:29 PM UTC

mjburgess wrote: post #294

majormajor wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>and the supreme court itself reserves the right to make universal injunctions on iterim orders/policies until they decide the case on a full hearing (at which time they can invalide the law/order) Doesn't that require an appeal? Or are you saying they'd go put a policy or law on hold even if there wasn't an open case after a lower judge ruled against them and the government chose not to appeal so as to not risk losi…

Not necessarily, though I'd guess what Kavanaugh imagines is that many states will obtain state-wide injunctions that make executing an order like this practically impossible (indeed, that is what the SC has said should happen next) -- and, imv, he believes there is a nation-wide class in-play and this will go to a nation-wide class action. At which time the executive will be entirely boxed in. Given this, the execut…

Can the executive branch force arbitration via presidential order to limit the ability to form class action suites?

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

#337

Post by majormajor » Fri, Jun 27, 2025, 10:29 PM UTC

firesteelrain wrote: post #331

majormajor wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. What chaos that would be worse than the chaos of jurisdictional fracturing they're asking for here and the possibility to not let cases escalate to courts with supposed national jurisdiction? Rulings were stayed all the time . The existence o…

But, we did get conflicting nationwide rulings from different district courts, which encouraged forum shopping and rushed litigation. Federal law is national, but relief in equity has always been limited to the parties before the court unless a class is certified > The existence of a national injunction seems built in to the job of a federal judge since federal law is definitionally national That’s a clever line. See…

>But, we did get conflicting nationwide rulings from different district courts, which encouraged forum shopping and rushed litigation.

And... who was suffering for it, exactly? How was it hurting me?

> That’s a clever line. > > See, there is a difference between saying “this law is unconstitutional” and saying “this law is blocked for everyone, everywhere.”

"This law is only blocked for these people" is the less "clever", more "obvious" situation in your mind? No, that's a clever hack that same sneaky bastard came up with to justify removing further obstacles for the executive to increase its own power.

But it seems to fly against the face of history. Federal law has been in the business of preempting local authority for centuries. Now we want to unwind that and let jurisdictions opt-out case-by-case?

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

#338

Post by tshaddox » Fri, Jun 27, 2025, 10:29 PM UTC

majormajor wrote: post #283

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.

It stretches credibility to claim that the "proper functioning of the government" is broken today requiring a change by something that is ... quite old. (I think there's a MUCH stronger argument to be made that the proper function of the US government has been broken by Presidents changing thing by executive order because nobody has enough votes to do much in the Senate. It seems like "nobody has the votes to make bi…

> It seems like "nobody has the votes to make big changes" should be an indicator that not making big changes is the proper result.

"Nobody has the votes" seems like a weird way to put it, because is implies that everyone wants to make changes, they just can't agree which changes to make. On the contrary, I think the issue is that most congresspeople do not want to make changes. Changes are scary. If your name is associated with a change, and that change becomes unpopular, it might threaten your reelection!

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

#339

Post by convolvatron » Fri, Jun 27, 2025, 10:30 PM UTC

laughing_man wrote: post #298

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.

Agreed. The system simply cannot work if any district judge anywhere can veto the president's policies. In theory it's just an injunction, but the reality is this kind of stuff takes forever to get hashed out in the courts, and Trump will be well out of office before it gets settled. I have no problem with SCOTUS injunctions, but there are too many district courts for this to work. The way things were heading the pre…

only under the assumption that the governments job is to contravene the law of the land - which up until pretty recently no one believed including the government

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

#340

Post by ggm » Fri, Jun 27, 2025, 10:31 PM UTC

Tadpole9181 wrote: post #163

eschaton wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Oh, of course. Because it's federal law, being in a state with an injunction isn't actually a protection. A federal LEO can detain & relocate you, charging you with violating a law in another state where there is no such injunction. This is a whole-sale shredding of the constitution.

So for example, seeking reproductive rights in one state which is forbidden in another?

Forgive a possibly silly question but in what sense does being "in" Florida mean you are bound by Florida state law when you leave? How long did you need to be in Florida before you became bound by its law? What if you fall pregnant after you left? Can you be in breach without ever having been in Florida, and a LEO can therefore take you there and charge you?