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

#661

Post by msgodel » Sat, Jun 28, 2025, 3:51 AM UTC

magicalist wrote: post #648

msgodel wrote: post #640

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure ask for ID. But a lot less could go wrong than just letting anyone into the country en mass with no practical way to remove them. You effectively don't have a country at all under that regime.

> Sure ask for ID Let's just turn to our national ID system...oh wait... > But a lot less could go wrong than just letting anyone into the country en mass with no practical way to remove them. Are you suggesting the only two options are extraordinary rendition to concentration camps in El Salvador with no recourse or instant squatters rights for all foreigners? > You effectively don't have a country at all under that…

The time to be careful was 10-20 years ago. Now it's just getting solved.

We do have birth certificates and in most states it is actually very hard to get state ID without at least residency so yes asking for ID is usually enough.

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

#662

Post by fzeroracer » Sat, Jun 28, 2025, 3:55 AM UTC

laughing_man wrote: post #349

tzs wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's been enacted into law at least 3 times, for difference classes of people. 1. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which covers everyone born here who is not the child of foreign diplomats or members of foreign armed forces stationed in the US. 2. The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 which extended it to Native Americans who were living under tribal sovereignty. 3. The Immigration and Nationality Technical Corre…

Well, okay, but none of this applies to the children of illegal immigrants.

If you believe illegal immigrants can commit crimes, be jailed and be deported then by definition they are subject to US jurisdiction. There is literally no other position to hold here outside of outright hypocrisy.

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

#663

Post by intended » Sat, Jun 28, 2025, 3:58 AM UTC

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.

Time! Time is the lever which a small group has used to make these changes.

It’s been ~40 years of Talk Radio in America and ~30 years of TV, which has sold entertainment as news and fine tuned the ability to have a captive voting bloc.

Producing accurate content is laborious, narratives are cheap. Facts are essentially luxury goods, and the left+center is selling them as public goods. This can never work, it takes too much to pay for and maintain the institutions which make this possible.

The right is on the other hand, being organized and “flooding the zone”, in an unending effort to reduce faith in institutions. On top of it, information from the center and left doesn’t get consumed on the right.

This took decades to set up. Today Trump’s approval ratings are down overall, but Republican support for Trump remains at its March number - 88%.

Edit: If I could introduce another metaphor; it’s hard to sell your goods, where half the market is locked behind a monopoly that cuts corners, and sells junk food but can label it as health food. Oh, and they spend their profits, accusing health food of being spurious.

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

#664

Post by paulryanrogers » Sat, Jun 28, 2025, 4:01 AM UTC

peddling-brink wrote: post #251

everforward wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my reading and understanding, they still can, it just involves an _immense_ amount more paperwork. The ruling is basically that judges can only provide injunctions for the named party in a case, not universal injunctions. So instead of one injunction, each person impacted by the EO will have to file for their own injunction. Which will likely be granted due to similar injunctions already granted. So it reads to…

Not all people affected by an EO have an equal opportunity to generate that paperwork. Going to court or getting involved in the legal system have costs, of both time and money. Not something all people have enough of to spare.

We don't have enough courts. The population has grown yet the courts haven't, and now it's effectively pay to play.

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

#665

Post by aaron695 » Sat, Jun 28, 2025, 4:02 AM UTC

Spivak wrote: post #590

cyanmagenta wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

> ACLU

Lets not forget the ACLU has burnt 100 years of goodwill to become the bad guys in the past decade.

They went from from amazing freedom fighters to lets hope their organization gets destroyed because of the awful humans they let in internally in recent times. I understand there is a split with an old guard still fighting to get it back, but they will lose.

> "the cruelty is the point" read that EO

Helps if you link it - https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/defe...

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

#666

Post by paulryanrogers » Sat, Jun 28, 2025, 4:03 AM UTC

agensaequivocum wrote: post #579

braiamp wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone said in another comment, constitutionality of an action is national. There's nothing that could be considered unconstitutional in one particular region of the US and not in the others. The nationwide injunction is a tool that needs to happen if the US is ever attempting to be a country of laws.

Partisan organizations are running to judges late on Friday nights, "randomly" getting judges who issue a TRO before the government even is informed of the lawsuit let alone respond. We are talking about blocking the executive from action before any argument is made in the merits. That's not at all consistent with co-equal branches. If they kept this up, Trump would rightly echo Andrew Jackson "Well, John Marshall ha…

The answer to judge shopping isn't making the president a king.

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

#667

Post by joshuamorton » Sat, Jun 28, 2025, 4:09 AM UTC

mjburgess wrote: post #402

joshuamorton wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Imagine you're a SC judge in this case, and you have to craft a judgement which allows universal injunctions in incredibly narrow and highly specific cases, whilst ruling out almost all of them. And that the area of law you're dealing with is a puddle of mud (equity). You can of course, also not take up the issue on this case. I can't find the article offhand, but I believe Steve Vladeck made this point that the SC…

I think there's a clear 7-2 against this EO when its content will be considered. I do not think a lot of them enjoyed making this their stand against UIs; and you can hear in orals robert's frustration with the situation and various desires across the panel to find some way to thread the needle. I dont think any of the 7 trusted the goverment as far as they could throw them. This isn't a pro-trump court, nor one that…

I actually wouldn't be surprised if the case is stronger than 7-2 on the merits, which makes this an even weirder vehicle: why would the conservative justices pick this case as a vehicle for this decision when there are, as you say, much clearer abuses of national injunctions?

> I dont think any of the 7 trusted the goverment as far as they could throw them. This isn't a pro-trump court, nor one that believes any of this executive behaviour is credible.

I think that's untrue on is face. Either that or the remaining conservative members have a commitment to allowed an untrustworthy executive to commit blatantly illegal acts on a temporary basis as long as they will be eventually addressed.

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

#668

Post by kenjackson » Sat, Jun 28, 2025, 4:10 AM UTC

threemux wrote: post #583

kenjackson wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 professo…

I think your analysis is likely influenced by factors that are external to the actual opinion/dissent. But that’s fairly common.

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

#669

Post by nobody9999 » Sat, Jun 28, 2025, 4:13 AM UTC

magicalist wrote: post #652

firesteelrain wrote: post #621

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Courts are not the only remedy Petition to change laws, vote, protest, write news articles, start a podcast, donate to causes or org’s you believe in, etc Use the process and framework that is provided

> Petition to change laws change what law, lol, it's in the constitution.

>> Petition to change laws

>change what law, lol, it's in the constitution.

To be fair, the Constitution is the law of the land.

And it can be changed. You just need 2/3 of each house of Congress and the legislatures of 3/4 of the states to agree that such a change is a good idea.[0]

It's hard to do (and rightly so), but absolutely doable -- in fact, we've done it 28 times already.

[0] Meaning any such change would require broad-based support. Which is a good thing, imho.

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

#670

Post by paulryanrogers » Sat, Jun 28, 2025, 4:18 AM UTC

firesteelrain wrote: post #279

lostapathy wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It just says injunctions should only apply to the actual parties in the case. So every person wronged by the government should sue individually?

Not necessarily. That’s where class actions come in The point is that relief should be tied to proper procedure, not handed out universally by default. One judge shouldn’t decide national policy based on one plaintiff unless the case is structured to justify it

The "proper procedure" is increasingly out of reach for all but the richest or most numerous groups in our society (i.e. those equipped and qualified to launch a class action). It's justice on paper and injustice in practice.