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

#601

Post by nradov » Sat, Jun 28, 2025, 2:02 AM UTC

theptip wrote: post #581

diogocp wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

The parties involved can always petition the Supreme Court. They're free to take up any case even if there isn't a split between lower courts.

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

#602

Post by Aloisius » Sat, Jun 28, 2025, 2:04 AM UTC

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…

Does the government have to appeal their losses to go to a higher court?

Seems like all one would need is a case where the government won at a lower court, allowing the other party can appeal.

And if they never win, then the issue is more about legal resources than anything else, no?

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

#603

Post by goodluckchuck » Sat, Jun 28, 2025, 2:09 AM UTC

kelnos wrote: post #562

goodluckchuck wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

It's also possible that someone with Sotomayor's experience can see the government's position for what it is: complete bullshit.

Again, the point of being a judge is to not just make assumptions about what you think their argument is going to be. If your opinion is made up before you hear the case, then your opinion is bullshit.

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

#604

Post by bravesoul2 » Sat, Jun 28, 2025, 2:09 AM UTC

msgodel wrote: post #597

bravesoul2 wrote: post #595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First paragraph of TFA > The US supreme court has supported Donald Trump’s attempt to limit lower-court orders that have so far blocked his administration’s ban on birthright citizenship See also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_th...

Those are only "citizens" because of a weird legal technicality that's a holdover from the civil war era. Most countries don't do that because the incentives it creates are kind of insane and very destructive in practice.

Sure. But I was replying to:

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

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

#605

Post by mmcwilliams » Sat, Jun 28, 2025, 2:10 AM UTC

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.

What you're describing is the "check" in the term "checks and balances".

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

#606

Post by pas » Sat, Jun 28, 2025, 2:11 AM UTC

treetalker wrote: post #15

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 may not be surprising to learn that over the past several decades conservative Congresses (through the so-called Class Action Fairness Act and its ilk) and Supreme Court decisions have all but eliminated class actions.

how did CAFA (and these other acts) affect class actions? why this led to their elimination?

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

#607

Post by ceejayoz » Sat, Jun 28, 2025, 2:11 AM UTC

stogot wrote: post #535

Spooky23 wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since we’re rendering people to El Salvador, there’s no reason some ICE bounty hunter can’t grab you in Massachusetts, and dump you in some Home Depot parking lot in the Carolinas.

Would this not be by residency? If you are a Oklahoma resident, then do either of those states matter?

Nope.

That's why the Feds were moving high-profile detainees to Louisiana as quickly as possible; for a more friendly judicial setup.

https://www.axios.com/2025/03/27/trump-immigration-louisiana...

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

#608

Post by FireBeyond » Sat, Jun 28, 2025, 2:13 AM UTC

magicalist wrote: post #250

Amezarak wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author of the clause didn't think it applied to the children of aliens, so it doesn't seem crazy to me. > Howard said that the clause "is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States."[30] He added that citizenship "wil…

> He added that citizenship "will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons" yes, exactly, if you're born to an ambassador in the US, you aren't subject to the jurisdiction. Meanwhile: > The proposition before us, I…

> yes, exactly, if you're born to an ambassador in the US, you aren't subject to the jurisdiction.

What? Absolutely you are. Are you trying to claim there's some strange diplomatic immunity here?

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

#609

Post by diogocp » Sat, Jun 28, 2025, 2:13 AM UTC

ReptileMan wrote: post #202

jonstewart wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Judges have never been able to make rulings based on their own subjective politics. They must justify their rulings under the law. I could extend some merit to the idea that injunctions should be limited in complex cases where case law is thin and the law is less than clear. When executive orders are clearly unconstitutional, however, I do not then see any reason for limits.

>They must justify their rulings under the law. The law that states that growing wheat on your own land is interstate commerce.

Excuse me, the law actually states that growing wheat on your own land solely for your own personal consumption is interstate commerce.

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

#610

Post by jrflowers » Sat, Jun 28, 2025, 2:16 AM UTC

mjburgess wrote: post #505

bigyabai wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I cannot see on what basis my comment is wrong. Paul Graham made a useful chart for judging whether or not your rhetoric is actually aimed downrange: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Graham_(programmer)#/medi... You could have started with a refutation of the point if you wanted to impress us. Instead we're 40 comments deep in a flagged comment chain because you wanted to put your ad-hominem foot forward. When yo…

I arrived to a thread in chaos. I don't take it to have been my foot forward. Perhaps I could've better phrased it, "Given the emotional disregulation caused by the dissents, go read K's concurrence" -- however this is what I meant to say, still mean to say, and said. I don't take the only legitimate aim of a comment to be "arguments" in this sense. One can comment on the psychology of the environment one finds onese…

> Given the emotional disregulation

Exactly. Everybody else is emotionally disregulated and you simply have the serenity that comes when there is no daylight between your opinion and the objective truth of reality. It is important that people know how much better you are at feeling and thinking than them, otherwise what would be the value of just saying your thoughts on the topic at hand?