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

401–410 of 878 posts

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

#401

Post by magicalist »

firesteelrain wrote: post #345
majormajor wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 "cle…

Whether you were personally hurt isn’t the point. Conflicting nationwide rulings from different judges created legal chaos and undermined consistency Courts can still block unlawful policies, but broad relief should come through class actions This ruling doesn’t undo federal supremacy. It just puts guardrails around how relief is issued

> Whether you were personally hurt isn’t the point. Conflicting nationwide rulings from different judges created legal chaos and undermined consistency

So now you can be a US citizen when in New York but not while in Kentucky. Sure to cause no chaos.

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

#402

Post by mjburgess »

joshuamorton wrote: post #391
mjburgess wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine you're a SC judge in this case, and you have to craft a judgement which allows universal injunctions in incredibly narrow and highly specific cases, whilst ruling out almost all of them. And that the area of law you're dealing with is a puddle of mud (equity). You can either try to do this and roll the dice again on letting district courts interpret this judgement, or just say, basically no -- if you want to…

> Imagine you're a SC judge in this case, and you have to craft a judgement which allows universal injunctions in incredibly narrow and highly specific cases, whilst ruling out almost all of them. And that the area of law you're dealing with is a puddle of mud (equity). You can of course, also not take up the issue on this case. I can't find the article offhand, but I believe Steve Vladeck made this point that the SC…

I think there's a clear 7-2 against this EO when its content will be considered. I do not think a lot of them enjoyed making this their stand against UIs; and you can hear in orals robert's frustration with the situation and various desires across the panel to find some way to thread the needle. I dont think any of the 7 trusted the goverment as far as they could throw them. This isn't a pro-trump court, nor one that believes any of this executive behaviour is credible. I think they were not at all pleased with how the case had been brought to them.

It's clear K's concurrence was written as a playbook for how to get to "the right outcome" in this case, and it will be followed. I suspect if that playbook wasnt available, they would have had a much harder time with getting to a judgement.

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

#403

Post by [deleted] »

mjburgess wrote: post #375
consumer451 wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you have any interest in taking a non-hysterical reaction... What a lovely way to frame a statement and put down people who hold a multitude of opinions that you do not share.

The well has been poisoned by Sotomayor's dissent, and the headlines which come form it. I'm rebuffing a framing that many have taken who haven't listened to the oral arguments, havent read the judgement, and so on. I don't take people who engage in this emotionally elevated reaction to the issue to have a different opinion, I take them to have no opinion at all -- because their reaction isn't an evaluation of the ju…

[deleted]

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

#404

Post by firesteelrain »

beej71 wrote: post #397
firesteelrain wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not necessarily. That’s where class actions come in The point is that relief should be tied to proper procedure, not handed out universally by default. One judge shouldn’t decide national policy based on one plaintiff unless the case is structured to justify it

It seems like the GPs issue still remains, except instead of individual lawsuits forever, it's class action lawsuits forever, does it not?

They slow down the “forever lawsuit” problem by consolidating claims, reducing conflicting rulings, and giving defendants a clear path to challenge the case’s scope. It’s not perfect, but it’s better than unlimited nationwide injunctions from any one court.

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

#405

Post by hayst4ck »

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.

Law and order is frequently said, but few people separate the ideas. Law is justice while order is the absence of open conflict. They are not the same thing.

This is a ruling which chooses order over law. Order without justice is tyranny.

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

#406

Post by verteu »

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.

This is false, per US v. Wong Kim Ark, and the attempt to reinterpret "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was shot down by courts in Plyler v Doe.

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

#407

Post by magicalist »

ggm wrote: post #340
Tadpole9181 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

That should be unconstitutional to either try to prosecute you for actions outside your state or to prevent you from leaving to make those actions, but conservatives are trying!

https://www.texastribune.org/2024/02/09/texas-abortion-trans...

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

#408

Post by hayst4ck »

mjburgess wrote: post #252

[flagged]

> If you have any interest in taking a non-hysterical reaction to the ruling

"The court’s decision to permit the executive to violate the constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law,” Jackson wrote. “Given the critical role of the judiciary in maintaining the rule of law … it is odd, to say the least, that the court would grant the executive’s wish to be freed from the constraints of law by prohibiting district courts from ordering complete compliance with the constitution.”

Reacting to a (female) judge assessing that there is an existential threat to the rule of law, in an administration that has done everything to break through the boundaries of law and openly violates it is hardly "hysteria", especially when there is a track record of robbing people of due process, which is literally and precisely the executive asserting its supremacy over the judiciary by robbing it of the opportunity to make a ruling.

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

#409

Post by siliconc0w »

It's wild that that the supreme court can just avoid ruling on the actual patently illegal and unconstitutional action that this administration is taking and instead solely focus on a procedural mechanism that is being used to stop that illegal action.

Oh but the high court of chancery in england! They didn't have them, so we can't either! Never mind that is 2025, we're a different nation, the federal government has a lot more power, and we have these injunctions for all of Biden's term and they had plenty of opportunity to stop them but said nothing when it was for protecting gun rights or denying women's healthcare.

Post reply on HN