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

#731

Post by firesteelrain » Sat, Jun 28, 2025, 11:51 AM UTC

sterlind wrote: post #725

firesteelrain wrote: post #714

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

the Constitution entitles all persons in the US to have due process, including aliens: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-5/r... reversing that case law would be a bit much even for Alito, I think.

Not exactly

Non-citizens in removal proceedings get civil hearings, with fewer procedural protection. Expedited removal allows certain undocumented immigrants to be deported without ever seeing a judge, unless they claim asylum or prove long-term presence.

Courts have upheld that due process is contextual. It is not “one-size-fits-all” So yes, undocumented immigrants have a constitutional floor of protections but not the same ceiling as citizens or green card holders

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

#732

Post by firesteelrain » Sat, Jun 28, 2025, 11:56 AM UTC

nobody9999 wrote: post #719

firesteelrain wrote: post #703

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 naturalize…

My original comment was not defending any attempt to strip citizenship from those born in the US under the 14th Amendment.

No executive order can override the Constitution.

My point was narrower: when people bring up “due process” it’s important to recognize that not all persons receive the same level of due process in every context. Courts have long held that undocumented individuals and particularly those subject to expedited removal or caught at the border have limited procedural protections compared to citizens

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

#733

Post by firesteelrain » Sat, Jun 28, 2025, 11:57 AM UTC

vkou wrote: post #637

firesteelrain wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Follow the process What is the next step in the process? It no longer matters how many times and how hard you win, no precedent will ever be set. You talk about making better cases and better arguments? Don't you think that the onus is on the government to do that, when they are both doing something entirely unprecedented, and losing every time it goes to court? The point of checks and balances isn't to make it qui…

Onus is on Plaintiffs. That’s how our system works

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

#734

Post by codeguro » Sat, Jun 28, 2025, 12:01 PM UTC

DarknessFalls wrote: post #160

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…

This administration does not really care about the rule of law. It cares to some degree about public perception. The timing of this ruling is about revoking birthright citizenship, which is a huge Constitutional trampling. There were opportunities four years ago for the SC to step in and they refused to intercede. For example, why didn't they rule in favor of executive authority when President Biden he tried to forgi…

>why didn't they rule in favor of executive authority when President Biden he tried to forgive student loan debt and a Federal Judge in Texas deemed it "unlawful"?

Because it is unlawful. Student loan forgiveness is not an entitlement. College isn’t an entitlement. These are the facts. Moreover, college is a privilege, and it’s a choice, and at its core it is an investment into your future. Having the government forgive it implies the taxpayer will pay for it. That means that essentially people who chose _not_ to go to college, by their own choice or due to their own circumstances, now have to pay for the investments of the people who chose to go. College educated people tend to make much more money too, so in essence you’ll literally be taking money from the less privileged and giving it to the more/rich. And this would be done by force. In what way would that be lawful? Why would others have to pay for your personal investments? You took out a loan, you pay it off. Leave everyone else out of it.

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

#735

Post by collingreen » Sat, Jun 28, 2025, 12:05 PM UTC

tshaddox wrote: post #191

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…

It's so silly to blame the American people though, considering the vastly greater resources required to politically organize millions of people to counter the what a handful of people in the executive branch or a couple dozen people in the legislative branch can do with a flick of the wrist.

I don't understand this argument or the implications of what follows. If this is a government via consent of the people who intentionally elected a criminal who promised to do more criminal things and then did them, who else could possibly be responsible?

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

#736

Post by salawat » Sat, Jun 28, 2025, 12:08 PM UTC

goodluckchuck wrote: post #526

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.

Absolutely, and they discussed this. The “problem” with that is the results of a class action are binding on the class, win or lose. So it’s possible that you’re a member of the # Million person class-action claiming to be exempt from deportation because of X (because you didn’t opt-out) and the class could lose. The Universal Injunctions were a one-way rule. If the government lost any one case, the injunction would…

Heh. Corollary: By joining the class, one is setting themselves up as a target by feeding targeting data for ICE into the Court system. The government doesn't even have to look for you now, because you self-selected into the class.

Christ almighty. This is why we can't have nice things.

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

#737

Post by collingreen » Sat, Jun 28, 2025, 12:15 PM UTC

sterlind wrote: post #722

underlipton wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brian Thompson's death didn't seem to have any major consequences along those lines. Targeted assassinations seem to be kosher for avoiding crackdowns. If someone were to shoot Peter Thiel in the head, do we REALLY expect to see a sudden descent into oppressive authoritarianism? Or, as with Thompson, do most people say, "Eh, he had it coming," and keep it moving?

Brian Thompson was uniquely unsympathetic. he wasn't well-known, his wife had separated from him, and nearly everyone has a personal experience of some family member being fucked over by health insurance, with UnitedHealth being especially heinous. the media really struggled to find anyone to say sincerely positive things about him. he really was the best possible target Luigi could have chosen.

I agree he was unsympathetic but there are far far "better targets" (your words) for vigilante murder if public opinion is the bar. Robert Richards IV is one of my go to examples for the complete lack of justice for the hyperwealthy [1] but there are mountains of big pharma, big food, insurance, church leaders, and private military people who are absolute monsters by any reasonable standard.

I think Brian Thompson was a fuckface (and all the others who help enable the evils there in the name of profit) but he was basically doing what America has deemed not only fine but noble - make as much money as possible without fully breaking the law (or, more accurately, being forced to stop by the law - many routinely and intentionally break the law in their pursuit). Half the country loves and celebrates this behavior to the point where politicians _brag_ about how good they are at it.

1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_and_sentencing_of_Robe...

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

#738

Post by collingreen » Sat, Jun 28, 2025, 12:19 PM UTC

underlipton wrote: post #435

Retric wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> is that for the most part average americans agree with the elite. The results of the study are driven by the fact that when elites and average americans disagree, the politicians tend to side with the elites. The case when everyone agrees doesn’t tell you anything. It’s only when people disagree that you can find who has actual power and in this case the general public has effectively zero actual meaningful power d…

Yup. Two things can never happen: 1) General labor strike 2) General rent/bill strike Either one results in an immediate liquidity crisis/credit crunch and the delegitimizing/insolvency of most institutions. The beginning of the COVID pandemic was, essentially, this. I would add in "general bank run", but I imagine that they just... wouldn't let that happen. Ironically, an emergency "injunction" against withdrawals.

When money became notes on a ledger controlled only by those who already have all the power true, country shaking bank runs went out the window.

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

#739

Post by collingreen » Sat, Jun 28, 2025, 12:26 PM UTC

squigz wrote: post #699

heylook wrote: post #694

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't understand what reality you're living in where this is something to defend. Hacker news has become a much more depressing place post-Covid. Musk, Zuck, the All-In guys, Bezos, Altman. All of them role models for the people here, and all of them have gone mask-off to one degree or another in their pursuit of power and wealth and public adulation. One side of the hacker/startup coin is "look at how I [built t…

Let's not conflate hackers with startup people.

Or startup people with the old boys club

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

#740

Post by firesteelrain » Sat, Jun 28, 2025, 12:39 PM UTC

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #693

firesteelrain wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If "working as expected" means conflicting nationwide orders from different judges, policy whiplash across states, and emergency SCOTUS intervention just to sort it all out.. then that’s exactly the kind of chaos the Court is trying to fix

Yes, that is working as designed. It is the design chosen because it is better than the alternative of hundreds of conflicting orders leaving innocent people unprotected. This will obviously increase the number conflicting orders by several orders of magnitude, but either way: the conflicting orders are what we want to happen, because it errs on the side of caution. The fact that some courts disagreed didn't negative…

It’s not about sounding scary.

It is about whether our legal system should allow a single district judge to set nationwide policy even when their ruling conflicts with other courts, before the issue has been fully litigated through appeals

What you are advocating for is legal uncertainty at scale.

The new limits push legal questions upward through appeals rather than outward through conflicting orders and ensure national issues are resolved by courts with the authority to decide them.