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

711–720 of 878 posts

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

#711

Post by robocat »

ceejayoz wrote: post #613
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

> the Supreme Court takes it This is not guaranteed. They don't have to take up a circuit split. They could just… leave it. Several are unresolved as we speak; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circuit_split#Examples_of_exis... Which leaves the Fifth Circuit a permanent loophole.

Lazy functional programming, human style.

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

#712

Post by KoolKat23 »

Does this ruling not directly contradict the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment?

Guess now not everyone has the same rights in America.

They can treat you how they wish unless you personally take it up. What next, personalised constitutions? rules for thee and not for me.

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

#713

Post by nobody9999 »

thoughtstheseus wrote: post #697
nobody9999 wrote: post #617

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Under normal circumstances, the president wouldn't be shooting the country in the foot, so I completely agree that in this instance, perhaps it is good that a district judge can do this. But if American politics starts getting played this way, I think you may see significantly more challenges in getting good laws passed. I am not saying this is a good law. Except it's not "getting" played this way. It's been this wa…

If you win in lower court you can still bring the case to the Supreme Court to create national uniformity. One of the consolidated cases for Brown vs. Board of Education won in Delaware while others lost. That is the appropriate way to determine national uniformity in law.

IANAL, but IIUC (and I many be wrong) if there is no controversy (e.g., competing precedents in multiple jurisdictions) there's nothing to litigate.

Moreover, assuming that the "winner" of a case has gotten "relief," they no longer have standing to sue.

That said, the issue at hand doesn't include a decision on the merits of a case, but rather what the scope of a Preliminary Injunction (PI)[0] might be.

In the example I used, if a court implements a PI it's to limit the potential harm to those impacted by the harm claimed by the plaintiffs.

The SCOTUS ruling limits the scope of such a PI to just those who are either directly named as parties to the case and/or those within the jurisdiction of the district court.

In that circumstance, there is no set of cases to be consolidated since no trial has been held.

Given a government acting in bad faith, this leaves open the option that those harmed by the action of the government can be detained and moved outside the jurisdiction of the district court. At which point, according the the SCOTUS majority, the government can cause the harm being litigated and anyone caught up in this would need to bring a new case in the new federal district jurisdiction, even though Federal law applies everywhere in the US.

Please note that at the point a PI is granted, no one has "won" anything -- only that the judge has ruled that there is harm (and as such, standing to bring the case) and that those bringing the case are likely to succeed on the merits.

Again, since a PI isn't precedent, and the litigants claiming harm have already gotten relief -- at least until the trial is complete, they have no standing to push anyone to extend the PI to additional litigants in other Federal district jurisdictions, even though the legal question is relevant across all those jurisdictions, as it's Federal action.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injunction#Preliminary_injunct...

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

#714

Post by firesteelrain »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #675
firesteelrain wrote: post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Constitution guarantees checks and balances but not justice in every case. People can still be disenfranchised. Especially when the system values procedural order over urgent harm. Someone might be deported, incarcerated, or otherwise harmed before the courts even rule on whether their rights were violated. US legal system highly values procedural fairness and due process. This is by design, not accident

So... no nationwide injunctions except from SCOTUS? Meaning the executive can just keep deporting without due process or honoring birthrights, so long as they back down for anyone with the means to challenge it. (And their lawyer is fast enough, and knows which district they were spirited off to in the middle of the night.)

The idea of a nationwide injunction was not originally envisioned. It’s newish. Only Supreme Court in a court-sense can check the Executive. Congress can also check the Executive.

Illegal aliens have less due process by law.

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

#715

Post by firesteelrain »

toast0 wrote: post #622
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…

I don't know a lot about class definition, but I've been a party through a class to about half a million lawsuits... Doesn't this just change most of these lawsuits into a class action where the class is say all the people born in the US of non-citizen parents, with the class represntative in the most friendly venue and then a district judge can accept the class and issue the injuction if they see fit? Then the execu…

It is fair to say that the system isn't perfect, but it's functioning the way it was designed

Class certification for the entire United States of those classes of people might be too large. Usually the courts prefer a more narrow class

some people will fall through the cracks in the meantime (and you may not like this answer), but that doesn’t automatically justify expanding judicial authority beyond what Article III or the separation of powers allows

The system without national injunctions is functioning as designed

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

#716

Post by pedalpete »

nobody9999 wrote: post #617
pedalpete wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am looking for feedback, but I don't think that is a valid argument. A single person absolutely can and should pull the fire alarm! Are you suggesting that an entire country should operate as a single building? Different districts have different laws and by-laws, and a district judge SHOULD be able to take issue with any law being passed down from on high. But should one person be able to challenge and essentially…

>Under normal circumstances, the president wouldn't be shooting the country in the foot, so I completely agree that in this instance, perhaps it is good that a district judge can do this. But if American politics starts getting played this way, I think you may see significantly more challenges in getting good laws passed. I am not saying this is a good law. Except it's not "getting" played this way. It's been this wa…

Thanks for clarifying. I'm a Canadian in Australia.

I think this statement clarifies it for me > The issue isn't whether a single Federal judge can make rulings affecting the nation, but rather that the Executive and Legislative Branches must heed the rulings of the Judicial Branch, regardless of where those rulings originate.

And that makes perfect sense. Thanks for your thorough response.

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

#717

Post by KoolKat23 »

timr wrote: post #113
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…

Or, more charitably: the Supreme Court has says that the president has this authority, in this specific area, and your characterization of this as "breaking the law" is not correct. Edit: actually , even that is overstating it. This is an extremely narrow ruling that is mainly about the powers of federal judges. It's the sort of ruling that the "other side" will trumpet as settled law when they're the ones in power a…

And the 14th amendment right to equal protection clause?

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

#718

Post by tmountain »

unsnap_biceps wrote: post #584
goodluckchuck wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is the same Supreme Court that granted the president immunity from any and all criminal charges as long they were made under the umbrella of the presidency. None of this is normal, and these are radical interpretations of the law explicitly designed to grant the president king like powers and reform the government into an authoritarian regime.

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

#719

Post by nobody9999 »

firesteelrain wrote: post #703
paulryanrogers wrote: post #683

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can be deported quickly, without due process to dispute false claims you're not a citizen, then you may wake up in a foreign prison without any recourse. Those of us with white skin and no accent may find that a silly prospect. Citizens who are different are already facing this risk.

You are referring to illegal aliens as citizens. They are persons under the law, not citizens. Constitution does not provide for identical due process between illegal aliens and citizens. Since expedited removal is authorized under 8 U.S. Code § 1225(b)(1), Courts have held up limited due process for those that not fully admitted or who can’t prove longstanding presence. Then, you have entry fiction doctrine where th…

>Finally, because of the Plenary Ppwer Doctrine, immigration is considered a sovereign function of the federal government and Congress and the executive have broad authority over who may enter and remain in the US

You do realize that the underlying case which SCOTUS limited the scope of preliminary injunctions relates to an Executive Order which directly contravenes the 14th Amendment:

   All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
   the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
The Executive Order in question explicitly seeks to strip people born in the US of their citizenship. As such, this case as exactly zero to do with "illegal aliens" being removed. Rather it's a direct violation of the US Constitution.

I get it. You want to throw lots of folks out. If that's what you want, then that's what you want. But if they can strip one natural born citizen of their citizenship without any due process, they can do that to any citizen -- including you and me. No thanks.

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

#720

Post by sterlind »

LorenPechtel wrote: post #161
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>class action What you describe is voting We’re in this mess because people are not interested enough, educated enough, or engaged enough politically to make their position explicit to drive the direction of legislation and executive action. Citizens of The United States have every tool available to to work together to shape their communities. The reality is the overwhelming majority do not do that, and you can come…

What *meaningful* action would you have people take? Remember, force is out of the question because it will provide justification for the oppression and make people more willing to accept it.

blue states ought to defy the Federal government. the closest we've gotten so far this term was California threatening to withold income tax. the less power the states have to determine their own destiny in the country, the less respect they should give the Federal government.

here's a success story: marijuana. WA and CO just.. decided to legalize it. blatantly against Federal law. even if it stays inside the state, by Wickard v Filburne and the supremacy clause it was a (mild) rebellion. we stared the Feds down and they blinked.

do more of that.

Post reply on HN