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

841–850 of 878 posts

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

#841

Post by firesteelrain »

vkou wrote: post #821
firesteelrain wrote: post #780

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If an EO clearly violates it, it should be challenged and struck down. My point isn’t that the executive can act with impunity. It is that the judiciary must do so within its own constitutional limits. If the executive is dropping appeals to avoid nationwide precedent, that’s a serious problem, but the long-term fix isn’t local injunctions See my point?

> If an EO clearly violates it, it should be challenged and struck down Fortunately a thousand years of common law have figured out how to deal with this sort of thing, while those challenges are ongoing . It's called an injunction. It's issued when there's a strong case for an EO violating it, and is done when the violation, if allowed unabated, will cause irreparable harm to the the victims. The legal process hinge…

The recent SCOTUS decision addresses the scope of those injunctions and focuses on whether a single district court can extend relief beyond the parties directly involved in a case. That’s pretty much it

Relief is still available through injunctive orders, class actions, appellate review, and coordinated litigation. These are all recognized parts of the legal system and remain available to address serious concerns

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

#842

Post by firesteelrain »

nobody9999 wrote: post #816
firesteelrain wrote: post #778

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not excusing bad executive orders. The remedy should come through the right constitutional channels: lawsuits, appeals, congressional action. The concern I raised is about courts going beyond their own limits to impose broad fixes when the real solution lies with Congress or SCOTUS.

You misunderstand the situation. The SCOTUS ruling is about Preliminary Injunctions [0], which aren't remedies and they aren't permanent. They serve to prevent harm while litigation progresses. This isn't something new, nor (until very recently) has it been very controversial. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injunction#Preliminary_injunct...

I do not misunderstand the situation

Preliminary injunctions have long been part of the legal system and their role in preventing harm during litigation is well recognized. The recent ruling does not eliminate preliminary injunctions

The case at hand addresses their scope and the authority of district courts to extend them beyond the parties involved in a specific case

The only thing I have consistently raised is maintaining that structure so courts operate within defined authority

It’s about time that SCOTUS reigned things in

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

#843

Post by firesteelrain »

anonymars wrote: post #820
firesteelrain wrote: post #815

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eventually it will reach the Supreme Court if it is appealed.

And what about right now (or rather, after the thirty day stay expires)?

It is a feature not a bug to have legal fragmentation in our judicial system. That’s how it was setup.

Enforcement and effect can vary temporarily due to conflicting judicial rulings thus creating short-term legal fragmentation until it's resolved at a higher level

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

#844

Post by hakunin »

jfengel wrote: post #87
hakunin wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this often gets confused. Voting a president in doesn't give them a blank mandate to do whatever they want, such as break the law. And knowingly doing things that might not get approved by courts, but veiling it in a "novel legal theory" disguise is still breaking the law. Just because slow and thorough processes need to take place to adjudicate these actions doesn't mean that these actions aren't worth adjud…

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…

I am aware of this ruling, and disagree with it. My comment was making a broader point: There's a mistaken notion that a lawyer can advise you to do something that they think courts might find illegal later, "and that's how we'll find out whether we can do it." That's illegal both, for a lawyer to advise, and for anyone to follow. A president is supposed to collaborate with the other branches to find constitutional solutions to problems, not deliberately attempt to overwhelm them with edge cases. But yeah, the ruling on criminal immunity feels horrific to me.

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

#845

Post by underlipton »

Whoppertime wrote: post #792
underlipton wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Wouldn't a general rent strike look like the Eviction Moratorium of 2021?

No, because people still paid their rent if they were able to.

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

#846

Post by underlipton »

LorenPechtel wrote: post #812
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?

He didn't have a role in government. He was just a despised rich guy. I was talking about the consequences of taking out any of the MAGA leaders.

Again, I don't think people are shedding a tear if Thiel or any of the other nomenklatura bite it. Going further: we just had an assassination of Democratic lawmakers, and it's already almost out of the news cycle. There's a chance that years of violence and elites who don't care have deadened the American soul to the horror of the proverbial guillotine.

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

#847

Post by underlipton »

pastor_williams wrote: post #480
underlipton wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I don't see why a single district should be able to influence the entire country. Should a single person be able to pull a fire alarm? Or do we need building-wide consensus first?

Should a single person be able to block access to the fire hydrant or do we need consensus?

Absolutely. And then someone grabs the authorities, they ascertain that access to the fire hydrant is necessary, and they remove the block. Or, they ascertain that access to the hydrant would result in harm (e.g., the people who want access want to damage it, or use it improperly), and allow the block to stay in place/remove the hydrant. Both the alarm and hydrant block are temporary emergency measures to prevent lasting injury should the relief not be granted immediately. They are only there until an authoritative decision is made.

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

#848

Post by underlipton »

thoughtstheseus wrote: post #795
nobody9999 wrote: post #713

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 exampl…

If litigants receive relief through a PI, it addresses their specific harm. Extending it nationwide may be unwanted if other jurisdictions have different views on the policy. The Supreme Court’s ruling ensures relief is tailored to the parties or district, preventing a single district judge from dictating national policy. While federal law applies uniformly, reasonable people and courts can disagree on controversial…

>If litigants receive relief through a PI, it addresses their specific harm. Extending it nationwide may be unwanted if other jurisdictions have different views on the policy.

That doesn't matter if it's a federal issue (which it would have to be if it's in federal court). A single district judge dictating national policy temporarily, while a higher court makes its determination, is exactly what they're there for.

Either the activity is legal (nationwide) by federal law, or it's illegal (nationwide) by federal law. Limiting to the plaintiffs violates equal protection.

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

#849

Post by Izkata »

vannevar wrote: post #596
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But see, it works both ways. If a judge can unilaterally block the president from exceeding his authority, a judge can equally well block the president from exercising his authority. (There is no magic black letter printing on executive orders that is within his authority and red letter printing for those that exceed it. In fact, this is exactly what these court cases are about.) So either a judge can block orders th…

Sure. And if their judgment is deemed incorrect, it will be overturned on appeal. If the matter is urgent, appeal will be expedited. That's how the system works. You can certainly argue that we need more courts to handle the current workload, but let's directly address that issue rather than curtailing the injunction power to reduce the work. Bear in mind that this was a case where the multiple courts who considered…

These weren't being used in that manner though - Trump was winning on appeal, then a second court would issue the same injunction, forcing him to go through the same thing again. This ruling was needed to stop the courts from abusing their power.

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

#850

Post by [deleted] »

stickfigure wrote: post #457
majormajor wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using private weapons to fight against the government to protect your rights is a laughably-low-probability-of-success scenario. Even when insurrections or rebellions succeed they often end up... not so great. We have seen what you get when you have an armed populace. Highly armed cops. Highly armed federal agents. Military equipment for civilian forces. All necessary in order to compete in the arms race against the…

Hitler's SA (the brownshirts) weren't government officials, nor were Mussolini's blackshirts. Nor are the Proud Boys. There are many more modern examples of pro-government militias in Venezuela and the mid-east. You never know who's going to deputize themselves as "law enforcement", with the quiet encouragement and plausible deniability of the ruling political party. Guns are unquestionably useful defensive tools aga…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN