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

#581

Post by theptip » Sat, Jun 28, 2025, 1:44 AM UTC

diogocp wrote: post #564

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…

There is no loophole. Defendants in the 5th circuit can appeal to the Supreme Court. That is one of the main roles of the Supreme Court: resolving circuit splits.

In this scenario the precedent has already been set in the 5th, why would the Supreme Court hear it again?

The 9th has nothing to do with an immigration hearing in the 5th, the individual’s personal history is irrelevant here.

Matter of Rahman, 20 I&N Dec. 480 (BIA 1992) seems to cover this. (IANAL)

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

#582

Post by firesteelrain » Sat, Jun 28, 2025, 1:44 AM UTC

gmueckl wrote: post #464

827a wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You described our system where there is separation of powers.

The judicial branch interprets the law, but it doesn’t direct executive enforcement decisions

Not appealing can be politically controversial and that’s part of how democracy works

We are not left with no tools. Just need to use the right ones

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

#583

Post by threemux » Sat, Jun 28, 2025, 1:44 AM UTC

kenjackson wrote: post #428

threemux wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Justice Jackson's dissent is honestly one of the most embarrassing things I've read from the Court and I've been reading most every opinion for years now. Heavy on the pathos, completely devoid of cogent legal theory. Kinda reminds me of Breyer, who, charitably, had an esoteric style. Kavanaugh is good to read on any topic - his writing is clear and often easily understandable by the layman. Gorsuch is an excellent w…

You clearly hadn’t read Barrett’s majority opinion. Conceptually broken as anything I’ve read recently.

Oh I read it, and I disagree with your analysis. Sotomayor makes some decent points in favor of nationwide injunctions when she deigns to engage in legal arguments, but the case against them is very compelling.

The textual case is pretty much completely against them, and if you prefer a consequentialist analysis their drawbacks are well documented across the political spectrum. I will say Barrett's time as a professor can mean her opinions are highly technical in their procedural analysis and she's not as strong of a writer as other members of the court.

This very opinion is also an example of something that Thomas has beat the drum about for some time and it later becomes a majority opinion.

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

#584

Post by unsnap_biceps » Sat, Jun 28, 2025, 1:45 AM UTC

goodluckchuck wrote: post #515

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.

Universal injunctions are superfluous. If the law says the government cannot do X, then who is a judge to command that the government not do X? That’s the legislature’s job. Judges have no authority to create rules saying people shall and shall not do certain things. That’s called passing a law. Similarly, when a party violates an injunction, who is the Judge to enforce his command? If it within a case or controversy…

So the purpose of the judiciary branch is to interpret the laws. If a judge rules that the government is violating the law, you want the government to continue to be allowed to violate the law until the legislature convenes a hearing and rules and then what? The judiciary branch was able to rule on punishment for violating the rules, fines and jail time and what not. You would push all that to the legislature as well? Or would the legislature run a hearing and then ask the judiciary branch to pick the punishment and then have the legislature apply it?

I just don't understand how you expect this to work unless the point is to make the judiciary branch entirely pointless (for government level check and balances).

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

#585

Post by vannevar » Sat, Jun 28, 2025, 1:45 AM UTC

refurb wrote: post #574

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…

> any of 700 district judges could unilaterally block the president from exceeding his authority Not at all. Whether or not the president is exceeding their authority, a judge could block it nationally. It's not like lower court rulings haven't been overturned before. And the bigger issue is "judge shopping". Want to block something nationally? Just find 1 of 700 judges who will rule the way you want, and file in tha…

Forum shopping is indeed a problem, but it's a separate problem calling for its own solution.

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

#586

Post by burnt-resistor » Sat, Jun 28, 2025, 1:46 AM UTC

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #468

8note wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

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

Yup. The ostensible pretense is a decorative, comfortable narrative for the masses masking the hypocrisy, corruption, and concentration of power and privilege.

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

#587

Post by firesteelrain » Sat, Jun 28, 2025, 1:46 AM UTC

root_axis wrote: post #167

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.

> 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 This ruling does not "restore" a functioning balance, it damages it. This has never been a problem in the past because previous administrations (regardless of politics) didn't take illegal actions daily. Framing it as "politics" is…

In our system, the judicial branch interprets the law, but it doesn’t direct executive enforcement decisions

Constitution would have to be changed

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

#588

Post by resize2996 » Sat, Jun 28, 2025, 1:46 AM UTC

ARandomerDude wrote: post #445

consumer451 wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it that the country appears to have been functioning pretty well for quite some time, until now? What has changed?

The post-WW2 bureaucratic state became so massive that it was first possible, then desirable, to weaponize it against your opponents. This is why we should have small government. If the government has a narrowly scoped role, the fear of the other side getting elected goes away. With huge government comes great concern about who’s in it. As proof of that principle, how many people are really fired up about who is elec…

Where do you suppose that power goes, if not in the hands of the federal government? Do you think it neatly trickles down to the people?

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

#589

Post by burnt-resistor » Sat, Jun 28, 2025, 1:48 AM UTC

ARandomerDude wrote: post #445

consumer451 wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it that the country appears to have been functioning pretty well for quite some time, until now? What has changed?

The post-WW2 bureaucratic state became so massive that it was first possible, then desirable, to weaponize it against your opponents. This is why we should have small government. If the government has a narrowly scoped role, the fear of the other side getting elected goes away. With huge government comes great concern about who’s in it. As proof of that principle, how many people are really fired up about who is elec…

> The post-WW2 bureaucratic state became so massive

Except that's a popular myth of the DOGE chainsaw crowd. The US is half the size of nearly every other advanced economy as % of GDP.

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

#590

Post by Spivak » Sat, Jun 28, 2025, 1:50 AM UTC

cyanmagenta wrote: post #479

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…

That was a concern noted by the dissent. That said, the procedure here is to just use class action lawsuits to get nationwide injunctions. The opinion explicitly notes that it is an option. And today there was a big flurry of people amending their complaints to do just that.

I actually have some insider info on this. While it sounds like in theory all you have to do is take your existing lawsuit and add the additional step on certifying your class, that option isn't available for the vast majority of legal challenges. In the history of the ACLU they have had less than ten cases where they could have been converted into a class action. As a real life example the "trans women being moved to men's prisons" case isn't eligible to be made into a class action. Tangentially related if you want to see a painfully explicit example of "the cruelty is the point" read that EO. Even if you're someone who broadly agrees with the order it's a lot.

Unfortunately "the set of people who are affected by this law" doesn't define a class.