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

461–470 of 878 posts

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

#461

Post by dh2022 »

UncleMeat wrote: post #58
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.

It could be fixed for the class with a class action. But the courts have also don't their damndest to make that hard too. Requiring a class action means that courts have the additional opportunity to say "nope that's not a valid class" (WalMart v Dukes being a rather famous example).

Thank you for this example - is very interesting.

I read the Wikipedia article [0] and I would point out that a class defined by birth place would pass easily Scalia's test for commonality. So it seems that using a class action suit that includes every person born in US of un-documented parents would work. (But who knows what other tests the Supreme Court would come up now...)

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wal-Mart_Stores,_Inc._v._Dukes

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

#462

Post by smeej »

jaggajasoos33 wrote: post #449

A lot of our systems work because everyone at least half heartedly sort of goes by the rules. Yes, everyone sort of pretends to obey the rule and hence it works. In reality these systems are extremely fragile and a small committed minority can totally break years of precedent and systems. I think we are at that phase right now from the right side and soonish we will see the same from right left as well.

Makes me think of the latter part of this quotation:

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist." - Lysander Spooner (emphasis mine)

Resilient systems have to align incentives such that they work whether or not everybody has enough good will or agreeability to play along.

250 years isn't a bad run. Maybe the next Constitution can iterate and fix the incentive alignment.

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

#463

Post by mjburgess »

magicalist wrote: post #446
mjburgess wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This judgement has nothing to do with citizenship, and there's yet no reason to suppose citizenship is under threat from the EO as a result of this judgment. Many states will have state-wide injunctions, and there will be a nation-wide class action suit to go thru the courts, and if there's any executive policy on this, it will receive judicial review. The SC will also, whilst this is going on, intervene an basically…

> This judgement has nothing to do with citizenship, and there's yet no reason to suppose citizenship is under threat from the EO as a result of this judgment. The executive order literally orders agencies not to recognize citizenship for children born in the US after February 19th to parents that aren't citizens or permanent residents. That can now proceed if you weren't personally covered by the three existing inju…

It cannot proceed for 30 days, in which time they can file a class action case -- and states which want to challenge this can still obtain state-wide injunctions. Neither has happened only because of the UI, not because the UI itself is required to challenge this.

And when this has a policy implementation it can be reviewed by the courts under the APA and that policy declated unconstitutional.

So no, this ruling says nothing about the executive order. An K's concurrence explains all the ways the order can still be challenged.

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

#464

Post by gmueckl »

827a wrote: post #317
EasyMark wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only reason the avoided is to avoid countering Trump, it's dead obvious that Trump is forbidden by law to do what he's doing. It's going to take months to years for a real 14th amendment case to reach them, meanwhile he's shipping people off to "3rd nations" to imprison them there in the worst conditions imaginable and indefinitely with no court process or trial. Why should an illegal immigrant go to prison, pote…

The judicial still has significant tools to stop an executive branch that is clearly acting illegally. So does the legislative. If these branches don't leverage those tools, or those tools don't work, we have bigger problems. Guess what: You're living in the world of bigger problems.

The dissent on this court decision beautifully reasons why there is no practical recourse for the judicial branch to intervene after this decision. The effective power to do so is now solely with the Supreme Court. But the procedure is such the the Government can simply prevent any relevant cases from reaching that court because in order to get there, the Government would have to appeal and they can just consistently choose not to do it.

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

#465

Post by 9283409232 »

laughing_man wrote: post #451
lelandbatey wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does not mean that in broad strokes. It very specifically was meant to exclude folks such as children of diplomats, as decided in United States vs Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898): https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649 A great summary: https://law.stackexchange.com/a/33057 In short the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes three and only three groups of people: 1.Children born t…

[flagged]

Using the Heritage foundation as a source says a lot. The tree where all the liars and conmen in this administration have come from.

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

#466

Post by throw10920 »

Spooky23 wrote: post #301
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…

What benefits are you collecting? The core premise of your racist rant is built around a the massive edge case. Reality is this policy will probably disenfranchise more children of American soldiers born abroad than prevent the alien invasion you’re scared of. The notion that the sins of the father impact the child is repugnant. The interests of the nation as a whole not allowing a clear violation of the birthright o…

> The core premise of your racist rant

As someone who has reading comprehension above the high-school level, it's blindingly obvious that there was no racism in GP's post. Your accusation is factually incorrect, logically fallacious, emotionally manipulative, and actively degrades the quality of HN (and, obviously, badly breaks the guidelines). Either your logical reasoning skills are deeply lacking, or you're aware that your claim false and maliciously making it anyway to deceive others, which is deeply immoral and disgusting. Regardless of which of those this is, never do this.

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

#467

Post by djoldman »

acoustics wrote: post #137

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 ill…

I'm not a lawyer.

What's the chance that this could be addressed via class action?

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

#468

Post by BLKNSLVR »

8note wrote: post #443
pyinstallwoes wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your premise is false, exceeding is not the limit, because the limit is at the behest of any of the judges; given a judge exceeds their rational, then they exceed their rational ability to limit the executive branches power

[flagged]

So it's effectively always been a dictatorship, it's just been dressed up to look like something else.

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

#469

Post by mjburgess »

hayst4ck wrote: post #460
mjburgess wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that's why I didnt recommend reading Jackson's dissent -- because its design ed to create emotional disregulation in readers and whip up a political storm. If you read K's concurrence, you'll wonder why there is any issue at all. Since, roughly, there isn't one -- there are a very large number of ways this EO can be challenged universally without requiring UIs

Yes I am aware. Your use of the word hysterical was precisely chosen based on your prejudices. Hearing that the executive is less constrained and more able to violate the law should make you emotional, especially when one of the nine highest members of the judiciary are assessing it.

The executive was being constrained by district court judges, hundres of them -- many, as we've seen, can be themselves a little crazy.

You don't want your country being run by the craziest common denominator amongst the judiciary. This is about as far away from democracy as you can imagine, and allowed to run rampent, would lead to massive a democractic backfire.

Imagine the political upheval of a democrat president being unable to act because of trump-apointee crazys in florida. The court has just prevented a decade of mass protests and political insability

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

#470

Post by ethbr1 »

jaggajasoos33 wrote: post #449

A lot of our systems work because everyone at least half heartedly sort of goes by the rules. Yes, everyone sort of pretends to obey the rule and hence it works. In reality these systems are extremely fragile and a small committed minority can totally break years of precedent and systems. I think we are at that phase right now from the right side and soonish we will see the same from right left as well.

There are few ways to secure rules against every contingency that don't come at a cost in efficiency.

Either you can have watchers all the way down and nothing gets done, or there are limits.

Post reply on HN