US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders
(theguardian.com)
14 points by leotravis10 21 minutes ago
Sounds like you now need to start lawsuits in every state?
by wdb 11 minutes ago
They need to do two things:
1. File a suit in every circuit
2. Request an injunction type that's more appropriate
Given the number of babies being born every day it shouldn't be hard to do.
The thing is, the US doesn't issue citizenship papers. So I suppose they need to apply for an SSN and get denied (since the baby is a non-citizen), which will show immediate harm.
It also begs the question: if that baby is illegal can it be deported? by mannyv 6 minutes ago
Judges were using injunctions to avoid putting their name behind a ruling.
They can absolutely still strike down a law or executive branch policy.
This forces judges to actually do their job., instead of a nationwide injunction while they decide if they want to do their job later.
It doesn’t actually alter some fabric of our democracy or checks and balances, because the judges had already gone beyond what the constitution and congress prescribed.
Every issue that any partisan has with this country is because one branch isn’t doing their job.
The disruptive aspect of this - with concern to the birthright case that hasnt been ruled on yet - is just another example of this. Judges not doing their job. by yieldcrv 4 minutes ago
Now, the administration will keep doing illegal things, and every individual affected will have to file lawsuits to invalidate the illegal thing - after the damage is already done - because nothing is preventing the government from doing illegal things.
by nine_zeros 5 minutes ago
There's no legal reasoning. If there's a D president again, this gets reversed early on.
Nationwide injunctions were saught and used by (self-proclaimed) conservatives to slow down and stop Biden immigration policies. by cmurf 16 minutes ago
You need to actually read the decision. There's plenty of legal reasoning. You may not agree with it, but your opinion is irrelevant.
One thing they didn't talk about was structural: the court system is split up into X circuits, and each circuit is independent. Normally each circuit uses rulings from other circuits as a basis for its judgements, but circuits are pretty independent from each other. The Supremes weigh in when the circuits conflicted with each other.
The national injunctions issued by the lower court allowed the lowest level court to have more authority than an appeals court. An appellate court's decision was only binding on its circuit. Why would a lower court have more authority than an appeals court? That makes no sense.
That's outside of all the reasoning the court used to stop this practice.
That said, if an affected individual brought a suit the may be able to get an injunction, since the court ruled that universal injunctions were inappropriate. by mannyv 10 minutes ago
> this gets reversed early on.
Through what legal avenue? by 15155 10 minutes ago
by 10 minutes ago