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

521–530 of 878 posts

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

#521

Post by firesteelrain »

anonymars wrote: post #508
firesteelrain wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? Federal laws apply everywhere. The rulings just means an injunction only affects the parties in that case or a certified class and not everyone everywhere automatically

Yeah, so when you say "federal laws apply everywhere", what happens when one state sues that it's unconstitutional and another doesn't? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44401294

Then enforcement is paused for the parties in that case. Other courts may rule differently until the issue is resolved higher up

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

#522

Post by vkou »

firesteelrain wrote: post #438
atmavatar wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It just says injunctions should only apply to the actual parties in the case. The actual parties will have been shipped off to another country, unable to bring the case, and anyone not already deported would lack standing to challenge the action. That seems awfully convenient for the executive.

Are you arguing against our existing immigration laws that the executive has to enforce?

It would be nice, for a start, if it actually followed the laws its supposed to enforce.

Could you find me the one that lets the president's office strip citizenship from people?

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

#523

Post by wnoise »

ReptileMan wrote: post #213
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…

>According to the Supreme Court, that's exactly what it does. The President simply isn't accountable. The president absolutely is accountable. The problem is the Congress for their own reasons refuse to hold it to account. The Congress could remove any president in less than 24 hours with simple majority for no reason whatsoever.

They cannot. It requires a simple majority in the House followed by a 2/3 majority in the Senate. This is basically impossible to achieve.

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

#524

Post by vkou »

firesteelrain wrote: post #404
beej71 wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This creates conflicting rulings, because now anyone who is party to a lawsuit has one precedent for them, and everyone else isn't.

If a state now sues the federal government on behalf of its citizens that a federal action is illegal, and wins, you now has a situation where a federal action is constitutionally illegal in one state, but is legal in another. How the hell is this consistent?

This doesn't consolidate anything. It removes the thing that forced consolidation - the ability of a court to issue an injunction and stop illegal actions from continuing - which forced the government to either give up, or appeal up. Now, everything is a legal patchwork.

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

#525

Post by bravesoul2 »

pastor_williams wrote: post #480
underlipton wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I don't see why a single district should be able to influence the entire country. Should a single person be able to pull a fire alarm? Or do we need building-wide consensus first?

Should a single person be able to block access to the fire hydrant or do we need consensus?

Should a single person be able to block the decision of the top ranking fire-fighter. That fire-fighter may be good, or may be in the job because he likes things to burn.

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

#526

Post by goodluckchuck »

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.

Absolutely, and they discussed this. The “problem” with that is the results of a class action are binding on the class, win or lose. So it’s possible that you’re a member of the # Million person class-action claiming to be exempt from deportation because of X (because you didn’t opt-out) and the class could lose.

The Universal Injunctions were a one-way rule. If the government lost any one case, the injunction would apply against the government in every other instance. However, if the government won, only that one person would be deported and the opposition would be free to try the same argument again with any of the other judges.

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

#527

Post by bravesoul2 »

roenxi wrote: post #504
dayofthedaleks wrote: post #129

This is functionally equivalent to the Enabling Act of 1933. [0] [0] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933

Can you outline the argument as to how? It seems quite different according to the article. The courts still assert supremacy when it comes to interpreting and vetting the law, and Trump isn't allowed to overrule the legislature's lawmaking powers.

Also it is not a constitutional change.

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

#528

Post by [deleted] »

billfor wrote: post #483
vannevar wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 would be more accurate to say that prior to this ruling, any of 700 district judges could unilaterally block the president from exceeding his authori…

We didn't have universal injunctions for most of the republic. They started around 1916 and even then prior to Nixon, federal law required 3 judge courts for injunctions against govt. actions. So this idea of a single judge halting something (right or wrong) only dates back to 1976.

[deleted]

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

#529

Post by speakfreely »

anonymars wrote: post #495
speakfreely wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 reaso…

Is federal income tax the only tax?

It eclipses the others, so it's the most relevant one to talk about.

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

#530

Post by goodluckchuck »

matthewowen wrote: post #49
bluecalm wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think class action lawsuit is needed here. It's enough for one case to get to SCOTUS and then we will hear their opinion about how 14th amendment should be interpreted. It will be an interesting case I think both 4-5 against and 5-4 in favor of changing the interpretation is possible (with 3-6 and 6-3 less likely outcomes).

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…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN