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

551–560 of 878 posts

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

#551

Post by firesteelrain »

atmavatar wrote: post #431
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…

> 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.

What case are you referring to?

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

#553

Post by kelnos »

firesteelrain wrote: post #233
vkou wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 o…

Please stop with the weasel words. "Functions as a veto" is not what's happening, and wielding the "veto" word is just a disingenuous attempt to make a weak argument sound stronger.

> until SCOTUS steps in, which can take months or years

If SCOTUS decides that something is urgent, they'll step in immediately. If they wait months or years, then they are signalling that the harm of waiting is not high enough to take up their immediate attention.

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

#554

Post by greeneggs »

speakfreely wrote: post #335
lelandbatey wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 reaso…

> I doubt anyone would dispute that public benefits flow disproportionately to those 72 million households for obvious reasons.

I would dispute it. One of the main public benefits, if not the main benefit, is protection of property rights. Those with the most property disproportionately take advantage of this protection.

Are you deliberately confusing taxes with federal income tax?

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

#555

Post by sorcerer-mar »

majormajor wrote: post #381
tshaddox wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It didn't though. It was really really bad for them.

Even beyond the lives lost on the side of the anti-US fighters in those places, who wants to bet on if the US would give up and walk away and just let any random local armed community in its own territory ignore it? Will you see eventual retreat, or will you see eventual overwhelming force? The US didn't want to bulldoze these other countries and jail or kill everyone and set up a new state; very different than how t…

Waco wasn’t a problem due to any separatism or resistance to law enforcement.

It’s because they were raising children to rape them.

So tired of this equivocating on what those people were about.

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

#556

Post by nwallin »

Jensson wrote: post #261
EasyMark wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not valid. When you're in a country you are subject to it's laws, whether it's the USA or Somalia

If you are an undocumented immigrant so the country doesn't know about you then its arguable.

No.

First of all, if an undocumented person commits a crime, they're not going to just let them go because they didn't have a birth certificate or passport or a documented name. They'll charge you, try you, and convict you same as anyone else. That's what it means to be subject to the jurisdiction.

The "subject to the jurisdiction" clause has two reasons. First and foremost is American Indians. American Indians, at the time, were explicitly not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Various tribes had treaties with the US government explicitly exempting their tribe members from federal, state, and local jurisdiction. At the same time, they were not considered US citizens. An American Indian could literally commit murder and the only legal recourse was to petition their tribe to bring justice to them. (there was also extra-legal recourse, which was a lot more common, but that's neither here nor there)

The other reason is diplomats. Diplomats have diplomatic immunity. They commit a murder? Not a lot you can do. (Hollywood overstates this, but not by as much as you might think) They didn't want to grant citizenship to the child if every diplomat.

This doesn't apply to illegal immigrants. There is no treaty or existing legal framework which grants them immunity to the law.

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

#557

Post by AnimalMuppet »

nwallin wrote: post #499
grogers wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL but isn't any ruling by even a lower court precedent? Like if I sue the government for thing A and a lower court rules in my favor, doesn't that make the next plaintiff's case for sueing the government for thing A much easier? All it seems to do is make everything much less efficient.

It's only binding in that district. So here's how the loophole works. There are 12 courts of appeals. You (ICE) does a bad thing. (renditions a US citizen to an El Salvador concentration camp without due process) You get sued, appeal it to that court of appeals. Let's say it's the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, let's say you lose. You take the L and move on. You never do the bad thing in the 9th circuit again: that de…

No, the way this works is, now you have a circuit split (the 9th says one thing, the 5th says the opposite). So when the person who lost in the 5th circuit appeals, the Supreme Court takes it, and whatever they decide is binding on both the 5th and 9th circuits (and everyone else).

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

#558

Post by firesteelrain »

vkou wrote: post #537
firesteelrain wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The whole strategy of the federal government with this is to never resolve the issue higher up. You keep saying that the issue will be resolved higher up. How? There's no mechanism for it. The winner of a case can't kick it up to higher courts.

Follow the process

like requiring coordinated multi-district litigation or pushing for appellate consolidation

This just puts the burden on challengers to build stronger cases, not shortcut national impact through procedural overreach.

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

#559

Post by kelnos »

mindslight wrote: post #510
diek00 wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would bet if the democrats did this, the collective right's head would explode. I love how selective Trump is with following the constitution and its amendments, his supporters as well. They will die on their sword for 2A, but 1A when it suits their agenda and all others are just loosely worded suggestions

> They will die on their sword for 2A No, they will not. Remember when Breonna Taylor was summarily executed for Kenneth Walker exercising his second amendment right to night time home defense - one of the exact scenarios the gun-fundamentalists are always fantasizing about - but then the Trumpists came out on the side of licking the jackboots? Personally, I think it is likely that sometime during this Trump "preside…

I mean, I think you're only reinforcing GP's point: conservatives are hypocrites, even when it comes to the issues they consider sacred. They'll flip if it serves their interests better.

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

#560

Post by acdha »

goodluckchuck wrote: post #518
nwallin wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's only binding in that district. So here's how the loophole works. There are 12 courts of appeals. You (ICE) does a bad thing. (renditions a US citizen to an El Salvador concentration camp without due process) You get sued, appeal it to that court of appeals. Let's say it's the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, let's say you lose. You take the L and move on. You never do the bad thing in the 9th circuit again: that de…

[flagged]

It’s easy to believe because they’re already doing similar things. The best publicized case was Rümeysa Öztürk, whose student visa was silently canceled over her exercise of protected 1st amendment rights. Normally, if there was a question about a visa they could handle the entire process in Massachusetts, which has a massive federal presence and where immigration cases have been handled without issues since about as long as we’ve had immigration law. Instead, the squad which abducted her off the street quickly took her through New Hampshire and Vermont on the way to Louisiana. There’s no reason to spend so much money on someone who isn’t a threat to anyone other than the Israeli government’s PR department unless the goal is to get them into a friendlier district before a judge can stop it.
Post reply on HN