Today, the United States Supreme Court will hear three consolidated cases in Trump v. CASA on the growing use of national or universal injunctions. This is a matter submitted on the “shadow docket” and the underlying cases concern the controversy over “birthright citizenship.” However, the merits of those claims are not at issue. Instead, the Trump Administration has made a “modest request” for the Court to limit the scope of lower-court injunctions to their immediate districts and parties, challenging the right of such courts to bind an Administration across the nation.
The case is the consolidation of three matters: Trump v. CASA out of Maryland; Trump v. Washington out of Washington State, and Trump v. New Jersey, out of Massachusetts. These cases also present standing issues since the Administration challenges the argument that there is a cognizable “injury” to individuals who may travel to the states bringing the actions.
However, the main question is the scope of injunctions.
As I have previously written, district court judges have issued a record number of injunctions in the first 100 days of the Trump Administration. Under President George W. Bush, there were only six such injunctions, which increased to 12 under Obama. However, when Trump came to office, he faced 64 such orders in his first term.
When Biden and the Democrats returned to office, it fell back to 14. That was not due to more modest measures. Biden did precisely what Trump did in seeking to negate virtually all of his predecessors’ orders and then seek sweeping new legal reforms. He was repeatedly found to have violated the Constitution, but there was no torrent of preliminary injunctions at the start of his term.
Yet, when Trump returned to office, the number of national injunctions soared again in the first 100 days and surpassed the number for the entirety of Biden’s term.
This is a rare argument. First, it is a shadow docket filing that usually results in summary decisions without oral argument. Moreover, this matter came after what is commonly viewed as the final day for oral arguments. The Court granted a rare late oral argument, reflecting that multiple justices view this matter sufficiently serious to warrant a break from standard operating procedures.
Rather than arguing a “question presented” on birthright citizenship, the Administration is solely looking for limits on the district courts as appeals continue on the “important constitutional questions” raised by birthright citizenship.
The Administration argues that the Constitution does not give judges the power to issue universal injunctions and that courts are limited to addressing the cases before them in a given district. The Administration acknowledges that class actions can create the basis for universal injunctions, offering a moderate resolution to the Court. In such cases, if the parties can meet the standard for a national class, they can seek a national or universal injunction.
In today’s arguments (which I will be covering for Fox and on X), we can expect to hear from justices who have previously been critical of universal injunctions, including Justice Clarence Thomas, who, in his concurring opinion in Trump v. Hawaii, called them “legally and historically dubious.”
Likewise, Justices Gorsuch and Alito have criticized such injunctions. In a prior dissent to an emergency filing in Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, Alito was joined by Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh in stating that the government “has a strong argument that the District Court’s order violates the principle that a federal court may not issue an equitable remedy that is ‘more burdensome than necessary to’ redress the plaintiff’s injuries.”
Many of us will be watching three members the most closely: Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett. Roberts is the ultimate institutionalist, and we should see in his argument how he views the impact of such injunctions on the court system as a whole. He is very protective of the courts’ inherent authority but may also have misgivings about the scope of these orders.
During the Biden Administration, Justice Kagan has previously criticized universal injunctions. In an interview at Northwestern University Law School, Kagan flagged the “forum shopping” by litigants in filing cases before favorable courts:
“You look at something like that and you think, that can’t be right. In the Trump years, people used to go to the Northern District of California, and in the Biden years, they go to Texas. It just can’t be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through the normal process.”
Justice Barrett previously joined with Kavanaugh in stating that the power of district courts to enter a universal injunction “is an important question that could warrant our review in the future.”
The argument today will start at 10 am and I will be doing a running review of the arguments on X.
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer will argue the government’s case.
Jeremy Feigenbaum, New Jersey’s solicitor general, will argue for the state and local governments and Kelsi Corkran, the Supreme Court director at Georgetown’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, will argue for the private individuals and groups.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University where he teaches a course on the Supreme Court and the Constitution.
https://x.com/middleageriot/status/1943367231770898903
What if a president signed an Executive Order overturning the 19th Amendment (women’s right to vote)? approximately 50% of the entire U.S. population are women (roughly 160 million women). Trump could do exactly this if he gets away with his 14th Amendment power grab.
Maybe in the federal 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, the court rules that women living in Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia can no longer vote since the president signed an EO. In other states women could vote depending on the judges.
If any president (Republican or Democrat) were sign such an incompetent Executive Order that resulted in very expensive frivolous lawsuits. Why should taxpayers pay for this?
This is exactly what Trump has done. Pam Bondi (AG) and John Sauer (Solicitor General) should reimburse taxpayers for initiating this frivolous litigation.
That was simply brilliant. Did you attend Harvard Law?
The Ratifiers of the 19th Amendment all understood that they were giving women the right to vote into the indefinite future.
Did the Ratifiers of the 14th Amendment know they were establishing a new process for when children of immigrants became US Citizens? At time of birth?….instead of on the same day their parents Naturalized? If so, why did nobody at the time start exercising this new right? The practice of Citizenship by Derivation was established at the very beginning, in the 1790 Nationality Act. Note how the entire family stepping up to Citizenship on the same day avoids split status. The founding Congress put common sense to law.
When the merits case gets to the Supreme Court (likely next term), the historical meaning and impact of 14A understood at the time of Ratification will become pivotal. If it was intending to change how and when newborns of immigrants became citizens, wouldn’t those parents have started to exercise this right immediately after Ratification?
The revisionist interpretation of the 14th (decades after its passage) does not carry the imprimatur of the will of The People demanded by Article V (the rigorous hurdle of Ratification). There are 5 solid votes for originalist interpretation, and only 3 votes for “a living Constitution” that circumvents Article V via creative reinterpretation.
There goes “but the Constitution plainly says…”.
WHAT if you had a brain?
Since on the face of it (prima facia case) Trump is illegally trying to amend the 14th Amendment and commit legal malpractice by ignoring 150 years of case law, since this such a frivolous action by Trump’s attorneys.
Why doesn’t the U.S. Supreme Court issue the national injunction itself until the case can be fully litigated? If the high court took this action, the lower courts would be legally required to follow this national injunction.
In the meantime, Trump could hire some attorneys experienced in constitutional law to advise him.
No, the EO is just basic law. The plaintiffs don’t have standing.
That’s right. And when has it ever been argued that a baby is “injured” at birth by the Nationality of its parents being Brazilian instead of American? That is a hollow argument that will fall flat. Soccer fans know it’s not true.
“SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF”
Were any of those criminal illegal alien invaders summoned for jury duty?
SU, everyone knows what it means. It’s just the new way of nullifying laws. You just break them and nothing happens.
On the 14th not unless you’re a slave and never swore allegiance. Be pretty old by now. It also covers the progeny so they’d need to file a renounce citizenship. That’d be clever.
Would it be OK to remove gang members? How about drug pushers or cartel members? Open border to escaped murderers? Is there any line? Just call it sanctuary. You don’t need a law.
R u 12?
Babies who haven’t been born yet (nor even yet conceived) have no standing as plaintiffs. The parents cannot stand as the “injured party” since the law doesn’t affect their citizenship status.
Trump’s E.O. was drawn up in haste with insufficient consideration of the effective date.
If the E.O. had given a grace period of 18 months for federal agencies, states and localities to adjust, these lawsuits would not have had any plaintiffs or injuries to file with. But “30 days to comply…that shows we mean business”.
Stupid legal advice, or no dissent allowed led to this WH blunder.
What BS.
Neither the children illegally born in the U.S. nor the criminal illegal alien invader parents are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
🤔 could it be the offspring have the nationality of parents? Now or later… maybe huh?
Neaner neaner I know the answer…not telling. Tee hee
While there is a Bill pending in Congress on an issue, no Federal Court should be accepting lawsuits that interfere with resolution of that issue. It’s a basic separation of powers principle, and Article I Section 8 is crystal clear about which branch is authorized to decide Nationality (citizenship) policy. HR 569 resolves 99.9% of the ambiguity about who is eligible as newborns for automatic US Citizenship.
Did I today hear Justice Sotomayor say that Congress is where such issues should be solved? It was summarily ignored by everyone else in the hearing.
I think the best outcome of this case would be to limit national injunctions to Supreme Court orders. That, and find that the effective date (2-19-25) written into the E.O. is the only part of it currently enjoined, pending the merits case being accelerated through appeals, with cert scheduled for next term, and resolved by SCOTUS no later than July 1 2026.
One caveat would be, should Congress pass new clarifying Citizenship eligibility law during the interim, the E.O. case is to be closed as moot. This last part asserts the proper Constitutional venue for addressing the Birthplace Citizenship controversy — in the public square preceding elections, and in the Congress so elected.
The idea that political-activist plaintiffs and sympathetic Judges — not The People — are to decide this core policy issue is vile and repugnant, and a hint of how democracy is being systematically undermined by powerful elites.
Why is the Trump Administration correct about the 14th Amendment? And why are the Marxist Conartists in Robes who take up space in the SCOTUS (which naturally excludes the only real justices who know and follow the law, Sam Alito and Clarance Thomas) are lying Leftist turds? Here’s a summary in less than 2.5 minutes:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/1K-0GFNKwEc
When the history of the 14th is dissected by SCOTUS briefs, another line of argument will develop.
It begins by asking: “Prior to 1868, how did the children of immigrants obtain US citizenship? They received it on the same day their parents Naturalized (citizenship by Derivation). This law goes back to the 1st Congress in 1790. Note how Derived Citizenship prevents divided status within the family.
Was this process controversial in 1868? No. Did it continue being practiced for immigrant newborns post-1868?….YES. For another 30 years!
So, answer this: If the 14th Amendment were establishing a new process for immigrant babies, why did nobody know about it at the time? If that were the purpose and impact understood by the Ratifiers, wouldn’t immigrant families have started claiming this new right immediately after Ratification? The fact that they didn’t is strong evidence that the interpretation currently being claimed was never ratified. It doesn’t reflect the will of the People — back in 1868 — or now.
Asking a simple historical question “How did things work for immigrant babies before 1868?” leads to clear thinking about Citizenship law.
Interesting [historical] questions, pbinca: it seems that “the process” (or lack of it) for immigrant progeny, prior to 1868, was more about the need for “open borders” to open territories; as manifest destiny was marching across the continent, there was a strong need for live bodies to move west, occupy, homestead, and settle the land. As we extend to modern immigration, resulting from Biden’s wide-open-borders, the early reasoning up to 1868 is now misused and does not correctly apply. Current reasoning for accepting and coddling the newest “immigrants” has more to do with achieving overcrowding in cities, destroying infrastructure and the economy, and with a population that wants to occupy —> without any allegiance whatsoever to the United States. <— This factor alone is cause for great concern and reinterpretation of the laws.
“Prior to 1868, how did the children of immigrants obtain US citizenship?”
Pbinca, this is an interesting question. Though not perfectly formalized, not everyone got citizenship. We need to think of the Dred Scott decision. Also think of native Americans. Immigrant children born in the US didn’t necessarily get citizenship. Also look at the laws dealing with Chinese persons.
“This law goes back to the 1st Congress in 1790.”
Didn’t that law exclude non-white and people with bad character?
Yes, it did. But those racial biases were corrected by Congress long ago:
1866: Ex-slaves en mass given US Citizenship
1870: African immigrants made eligible for Naturalization
1924: Native Americans en mass given US Citizenship
1942: Chinese immigrants made eligible for Naturalization
1965: National quotas for immigrants repealed; post-racial immigration policy established
Yes, Pbianca, what you all say is true, but my focus was on the mindset of those who wrote and voted for the 14th Amendment. Our history regarding citizenship is such that I cannot believe they intended birthright citizenship. When the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, the United States had a long history of narrowly defining citizenship. The idea that children of non-citizens, especially those in the country temporarily or illegally, could automatically become citizens by birth would have been foreign to the legislators and the public at the time. Thus I do not understand how birthright citizenship should stand.
Geee, when I read the 14th amendment I don’t see anything that restricts citizenship. Maybe you have magic glasses.
That’s because you don’t understand what Jurisdiction thereof means.
Foreign nationals 🤔
You might not know this, but the “magic glasses” are the ability to decipher CONTEXT. Context in discourse is set around facts and circumstances, current conditions and environment, and is often implied or embedded with the need for INTERPRETATION. This is also called critical thinking, a skill fast being lost through our DEI “math is racist,” socially-activist, dumbed-down education system.
Well, wally, the 14th is a period piece of work post civil war and wasn’t written for every person on earth.
Pardon Derek Chauvin
But that would signal that Mob Justice isn’t the rule of the land, wouldn’t it? This would put the entire fake-law profession in jeopardy and lower the stature of fake-law judges like James Dumbass Boasberg, Amy Commie Barrett, Ketanji Jackazz Jackson, Juan The Con Merchan, and other fakers in robes.
And think of the potential damage to the Presstitution Industry. They’ve spent a lot of time, energy, and money pushing the lie that George Floyd died from something Derek Chauvin did. Worse still, it would put the focus on the real reasons that Floyd died that are supposed to be state secrets.
(Shhhh, but Floyd died from massive doses of fetanyl and meth taken long-term and at such lethal levels that his lungs were inflated with fluid to more than twice their normal size. Have you ever experienced what its like to have your lungs filled with so much fluids that your lungs expand to more than twice their normal size? It’s like to trying to breathe underwater. But this is top secret stuff that destroys the sacred Deep State network of lies. So, please don’t tell anyone. Just pretend that Derek Chavin held his knee against Saint George Floyd’s throat, even though that never happened at any time. Deep State lies are sacred, holy, and profoundly spiritual. Honor and obey them. Thanks!)
Floyd was held down forced to breath CO fumes from the squad car’s tailpipe located 15″ from his head. The body cam videos clearly prove the hybrid’s ICE was left running the entire time.
“I can’t breathe” is exactly the sensation any person will experience inhaling car exhaust fumes.
The forensic respiratory pathologist lied to the court and jury during the last few minutes of the evidentiary phase.
He poo-pooed CO asphyxiation by falsely testifying that such would have been detected in the blood draw taken at the hospital. But, that took place after a full hour of heroic artificial respiration, which is is known in deceased fire victims to restore normal levels of carboxyhemoglobin and O2 saturation in the deceased’d blood. This is because the transpiration in the lung tissue continues after cardiac death. He lied to save Keith Ellison’s false narrative about neck compression.
You must be on some CO fumes, brother. All video I’ve seen has both of them along the side of the car. I didn’t realize Interceptors had exhaust pipes between the front and rear passenger doors
Where was hid head located? That’s what matters….how close to the tailpipe?
Floyd was an incoherent and violent criminal who was in need of a restraint procedure that Derek Chauvin and all other officers were trained to conduct, and that had been used hundreds of time previously with no deaths.
I’m claiming the death was unintentional.
I have only heard snippets of the arguments.
Regardless, there are multiple issues here.
Contra Thomas there is a basis for nationwide injunctions. But they should be extremely rare and limited to matters of constitutional rights and instances where there is clear harm to individuals absent immediate action.
The Birth right citizenship case fits that standard.
Questions over the presidents power to hire and fire or to cut waste fraud and abuse DO NOT.
The core problem this case presents is the politicization of the courts. Whether Roberts wishes to admit it or not – many judges are politically corrupt and are abusing judicial powers violating the constitution, the law and the rules of judicial procedure and need to be reigned in.
But the correct answer is not to bar nationwide injunctions.
The core problem here is that I do not think the Supreme court can solve this in any blanket approach.
They need to address each and every one of these nationawide injunctions on their merits and toss MOST of those that do not meet the constitutional, legal, and judicial procedural basis for a TRO or preliminary injunction.
The Court should NOT say “no nationwide injunctions”
But it SHOULD say:
The courts are obligated to assure that the plantiffs in these cases have standing.
In disputes over laws that government the separation of powers between congress and the president – only congress has standing. And congress is NOT in court. All such cases over the limits of presidential power in a separation of powers context should be dismissed – unless congress has brought those case.
In cases regarding employment – the only plantiff that should be allowed a TRO or preliminary injunction would again be congress. In the event that some RIF’ed employee is suing the only question is damages and questions over damages can wait for final adjudication, so again while Trump MIGHT lose these cases (unlikely), there is no foundation for a TRO or a preliminary injunction. There is no right to a federal government job. But there MAY be a right to damages if you are not properly terminated.
Except for the AEA case which arguably is a case of first impression – albeit one the govenrment is likely to win, in contrast to the Birth Right citizenship case. The remaining Immigration cases are trivial – The administration must follow existing immigration law. The COURTS can not concoct new law or new due process standards, simply because Trump rather than Obama or Biden is president.
Immigration law is administered by Article II courts. Those courts have consistently followed the law and ruled against illegal immigrants. The result of losing an immigration case is being sent HOME – not to prison. Which does raise ONE issue. A heightened standard of due process – more than the Article II courts being final is necessary where the Administration is seeking not just to deport people but to have them incarcerated in a foreign country. Article III courts are entitled to demand to know whether there is any agreement or any compensation being given to a foreign country – such as El Salvador to incarcerate people who are being deported there.
To be Clear the Executive can deport someone to a nation where they will be incarcerated.
But it can not without heightened due process seek the agreement of another country to incarcerate someone. That does not mean the administration can not deport someone and require that they be incarcerated, only that if they do so, Article III courts can conduct a review that goes beyond Habeaus.
The AEA and TdA are a special case. The AEA is presumptively good law. Trump is contra to left wing nuts acting inside the provisions of the AEA. But it does not appear that using the AEA to deport and incarcerate alleged criminals from a country that is allegedly using them to conduct a predatory incursion has been tested before.
I think it is inarguable that the AEA can be used to expedite the deportation of TdA members.
I also think that the AEA could be used to send TdA members to Guantanamo with very little judicial review beyond Hadeaus. They would arguably be the equaivalent of POW’s – they are not being incarcerated because they are criminals, but because they are enemy combatants. But that is also a different standard of incarceration. POW’s have both more and less rights than criminals.
But sending them to a maximum security prison in El Salavador – while it seems to me to be the BEST choice for dealing with TdA members, doing so increases the required due process.
Prisoners in CECOT are NOT POWs. El Salvador and this administration like to call them Terrorists.
Regardless, you can send them to a POW camp on an expedited basis – with all the rights of POW’s.
But if you send them to be imprisoned as terrorists, you must give them the due process required for alleged terrorists.
It is my understanding that Venezuela has agreed to take them now. That is an imperfect solution,
But if Trump wants expedited deportation for TdA members I think he must either send them to Venezeula or send them to Guantanamo and treat them like POW’s or he must allow for criminal due process before sending them to CECOT.
It’s a process and the footprint grows with every appeal until scotus then nationwide yea or nae.
It’s corrupted to overwhelm the system. The strategy is to overwhelm whatever is to be destroyed. Enough missiles will overwhelm the iron dome.
Too many hits on a website and it crashes.
OT
ebay fences what thieves steal. Hit broken items or damaged items with sledgehammers before disposal or they’ll be resold for dollar to replace a working similar item. Cut clothing up before disposal. Ebay fences…fyi.
The earth and its nations should be evaluated as a whole. Number of people living in poverty and other factors. There are many worlds and this one is bottom heavy.
Best wishes
Sounds reasonable
Justice Kagan’s comment that “every court has ruled against you” is wholly unpersuasive and remarkably uninformed.
What it represents is a small, biased sample that simply reflects the merits of “judge shopping”. What it conclusively proves is that not only are Dems adept at judge shopping, they’re actually very, very good at it which should come as a surprise to absolutely no one.
If SCOTUS doesn’t step in to stop these nationwide injunction misadventures, then not only will it have a “chilling” effect on the Presidency, you might as well serve up the Presidency and its attendant Article II powers on a stone slab…frozen stiff.
Kagan is also incorrect – Every court has NOT ruled against the administration.
The record of the administration in wining these cases is near 100% – once they reach final decisions. But many of these cases will not reach a final decision for a long time – possibly years and in the interim the nation will be stuck with the policy decisions – many of which are of dubios constitutionality and totally at odds with actual law until such time as these cases finally reach the supreme court.
One of the serious issues with these nationwide injunctions is that the plaintiffs can LOSE in multiple jurisdictions – even with liberal judges. All they need to do is find one judge somewhere in the country willing to be the lightning rod and defy the law, judicial procedure and the constitution.
True
The courts have been told that already….and they don’t comply
What’s going on here, boys? The question is about universal injunctions, not Kid Rock. District Court injunctions over nationwide political issues should never hold sway beyond their own “districts” except as they apply to class-action lawsuits. Once upon a time, reasonable boundaries between the three branches of government were more generally respected. But, not today! Extreme-leftists are well-versed in various tactical maneuvers of OBSTRUCTION, like the slap-dash filings that have the force of social engineering even while nullifying presidential agency. These intrusions should finally be met with a Supreme Court decision that limits the scope of such unrestrained politicization of the courts.
Extreme liberals like Matt Kacsmaryk?
Eesh. Extreme leftists don’t like the game when they’re not the ones playing it AND winning it. However, if we simply look at tit-for-tat, you’d better believe the extreme-leftisits take the cake when it come to universal injunctions. Were it not for the voluminous obstructions of the extreme-left, the practice of Judicial Activists and their utter lack of restraint and comity would not need to be addressed by the Supreme Court.
I prefer to look at it like Trump takes the cake for issuing flagrantly illegal unconstitutional executive orders based on personal vendettas or motivating MAGA base on culture issues.
P. pullu: You are right about Trump “taking the cake” on EO’s (by now!), but he learned the FLAGRANT part, the “lets go,” from ol’ Brandon, so you’re missing the boat on how the game is played—a game without rules, by the way, that extreme leftists introduced into the system, so you’re not entirely right [without a bit of self-examination] about this. You are also right in that there is a MAGA base, but don’t keep fooling yourself into thinking they are the whole of Trump’s constituency. They’re NOT!!! So, you’re not entirely right on that count either, and if you could see it straight, you might get your party’s respect back. Stop whining about Trump and start DOING things that inspire people.
By the way, we were discussing universal/national injunctions by District Court [activist] judges, not EO’s or Trump per se. Cogent dialogue doesn’t work when we can’t stay on topic
Pushmi, you talk in generalities. That is easy. Dealing with the specifics and defending them is much harder and where the left continuously fails.
Limiting District Judges will happen, but Aliens born in the US will not…
While Limiting District Judges would be a good thing for both sides of the political spectrum, the question of automatic citizenship via a staged [for that purpose] birth, via the sanctity of the Fourteenth-Amendment (1868), extreme-leftists fail to notice a specific date ( unique context) in which the amendment was literally brought forth, that being the Civil War, in which the status and future of blacks, formerly slaves, was contemporaneously in question: it was to these very particular “citizens” (born and naturalized in the United States, where they resided) that due process and equal protection was given.
The judges, blocking deportations via the Alien Enemies Act (1798)—predatory incursion/invasion, of which the onslaught of the last four years proves—are acting subversively themselves, overreaching the scope of their offices, and they need to be reigned in.
Dianna – the Birth Right citizenship EO is a loser.
First – it is way outside the scope of what a president can do in an EO.
It is a far smaller issue that people are painting.
As Homan has correction pointed out – you can deport the parents regardless, and the parents can decide whether to bring their children – though the children are still US citizens and can return to the US.
I have heard all the arguments that try to claim that Birth Right citizenship is NOT extended to illegal aliens by the 14th amendment – while those arguments are well made they are still constitutionally wrong.
Finally, ending birth right citizenship is a VERY BAD IDEA. The immigration problems of nations without is are WORSE than the US.
I think the AEA absolutely allows the expedited deportation of TdA members back to Venezuella.
I think the AEA absolutely allows the transfer of TdA members to Guantanamo as POW’s.
I am less sure that it allows the deportation of TdA members to incarceration as terrorists as part of an agreement with the US absent heightened due process.
Deportation does NOT trigger more due process than Article II immigration courts provide.
Imprisonment does.
I would like to see TdA members in CECOT, but I think that you detain them as POW’s, send them to Guantanamo, and THEN start the long process or setting them up for transfer to CECOT. If the administration loses in their efforts to send some of them to CECOT, they can keep them in Guantanamo per the AEA or deport them to Venezeulla.
I
We are well past the days of out-of-bounds (loser) EO’s, as Biden’s extreme-leftist handlers proved; things [that should be] “outside the scope” are now in play,” operating more as social policy catalysts, then cancelled via universal injunctions inside District Courts, and on to the Supreme Court, another branch that can be defied—who needs Congress OR the Constitution when extreme-leftists have introduced a brand new playing field. So, it’s a wait and see on the 14th Amendment, which seems to be a secondary issue at the moment.
Again, the 14th Amendment was contemporaneously an urgent issue with the subsequent freedom of former slaves and their rights as raised-in-the-land residents, which is sound interpretation. Please explain how non-citizens’ dropping babies for the sake of anchoring them in the system is Constitutional, and please explain just how ending this parasitic practice creates a “worse” problem.
That’s not what Homan said.
I think the court will decide that equitable remedies are limited to the plaintiffs in court. In a class action, the remedy could extend to the putative class.
This could still result in at least one of the nationwide injunctions being upheld. The plaintiff states argued that their pecuniary injury could be prevented only by a nationwide injunction, because otherwise they might be denied federal funds to reimburse them for required services provided to children deemed not to be citizens under the EO, if they come into their state from other states where the injunction did not apply.
In this way the court could limit future injunctions but uphold one here, satisfying everyone.
The Birth right citizenship EO is a loser – as well as a very small number of other EO’s.
The Birth Right citizenship EO is the wrong one to be in SCOTUS arguing about nationwide injunctions – because it is exactly the case that warrants a nationwide injunction.
Nearly all the other nationwide injunctions Trump is facing are dead bang losers for the plantiffs, and the judges have gamed or ignored the rules of judicial procedure.
Limiting nationwide injunctions to class actions will NOT fix anything – as we see in the AEA case – judges are manufacturing class actions cases where there is no foundation.
Habeaus is by nature INDIVIDUAL. Each case is different. In the AEA case Habeaus means each plantiff is individually claiming NOT to be a TdA member or NOT to be the person on the deportation order. You can not make a class of ACTUAL TdA members – admitting you are a TdA member means you get deported – PERIOD. Maybe you can make a class of TdA members challenging incarceration in CECOT. But that just results in immediate deportation to Venezeualla or incarceration as POW in Guantamamo.
Fired federal employees can form a class – but there is no right to be a govenrment employee.
Therefore this is a contract dispute, or some other version of a claim for improper termination and the remedy is payment and therefore NOT a legitimate basis for a TRO nationwide or not.
Limiting nationwide injunctions to class actions is both wrong and as easy to game by judges who ignore the rules of judicial procedure.
Nor can the court ban nationwide injunctions – they DO serve a legitimate purpose.
The problem is not that nationwide injunctions violate the law or constitution.
But that most of these SPECIFIC nationwide injunctions violate the rules of judicial procedure.
Because a subset of the courts is lawless.
You can not fix courts that fail to follow the law by changing the law.
“The Birth right citizenship EO is a loser…” Can you elaborate on that please? The Court saying, “because we say so and always have”, never answered the merits of the question regarding illegal aliens having children on US territory. Are you instead saying Congress or SCOTUS needs to clarify what A14 means today vs what it meant when it was passed? In other words, is the EO a loser only on procedure?
Can we get rid of affirmative action yet, or do y’all still need it?
When will reparations be distributed?
Bravo!
I do not like the administrations class action argument.
First many of these cases are NOT suitable for class actions, though atleast one court has manufactured a class where a class is NOT possible – where the issues are INDIVIDUAL.
So if the administration wins this class action argument – all that will change is biased judges will allow the creation of bogus classes.
One of the issues not touched on is that in nearly all these cases – there is no basis for a TRO or preliminary injunction at all – much less a nationwide one.
The core problem is NOT nationwide injunctions it is the lower courts refusal to follow the constitution, law, and rules of judicial procedure. If they did so almost none of these cases would have a TRO or a preliminary injunction.
SCOTUS can not change the rules of judicial procedure successfully if the lower courts are already ignoring them.
SCOTUS needs to compel lower courts to follow the constitution, the law, and the rules of judical procedure – NOT attempt to change the rules.
It needs to tell the lower courts – you can not issue a nationwide injunction when these cases do not meet the requirements for ANY preliminary injunction.
Service at high-profile MAGA supporter Kid Rock’s Nashville restaurant came to an abrupt halt on a busy Saturday night after undocumented workers fled en masse to avoid rumored immigration raids.
An employee said, “We were already understaffed because of the ICE raids throughout the weekend. Then, around 9:30 p.m. on Saturday, our manager came back and told anyone without legal status to go home. Events at the Ryman, Ascend, the Savannah Bananas’ baseball game all let out, and it was crazy busy. But there was no one in the kitchen to cook the food.”
But there was no one in the kitchen to cook the food !!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!
You really can’t make this stuff up !!!!!
You know, you’re right. Let’s just wipe away all immigration laws and open the border back up for human trafficking and fentanyl. Then wages and benefits for blue collar workers will go down even further, and the uber-rich will get even wealthier. That sounds like what you want, right?
NO, that is absolutely NOT what I want !!!
What I want is legal immigration for people who have been appropriately screened, to do the menial jobs that some Americans are apparently unwilling to do.
What I REALLY want is for MAGA hypocrites, like Kid Rock, to stop talking out of both sides of their mouth about immigration.
The real problem with illegal immigration is that the MAGA hypocrites who spend all their time demanding that the “illegals” have to go, are the very same ones who employ the “illegals” and create a situation that attracts them to come here in the first place.
Farmers in red MAGA states are by far the worst offenders. They vote for Trump and his policies then turn around and employ undocumented aliens, mainly because Americans don’t want to do the dirty, menial jobs.
TOTAL HYPOCRISY !!!!!
You seem pretty exercised about this. Has it affected you?
You also make a lot of unsubstantiated generalizations.
OMFK
A LOT of unsubstantiated generalizations ????
REALLY ????
Are you totally incapable of comprehending what I said ???
I made a SPECIFIC reference to Kid Rock, a MAGA extremist who wants to build the wall, who also employs undocumented aliens in his restaurant.
Is that a generalization ???
Is that a LOT of generalizations ???
I also referred to the well known FACT, that farmers employ huge numbers of undocumented workers because Americans are not willing to do the dirty work of farming.
That is NOT a generalization.
You know perfectly well that it is true.
Nevertheless I fully expect you to play the stupid MAGA game of demanding proof.
I don’t need to prove it.
You know perfectly well that everything I said is TRUE !!!!!!
Okay I guess if you say it’s true it must be true because you said it is. So your generalizations were not unsubstantiated because you spoke them and that should be enough for anyone.
Again, though, you seem very exercised. Has this issue affected you in some tangible way?
So, apparently you really don’t care that Kid Rock is a total hypocrite.
You really don’t care that one of your fellow MAGA cult members employs illegal aliens.
Apparently you think that I also should not care about Kid Rock doing this because it does not “affect me in any tangible way”.
OK, let’s think about that statement.
You are here every day opining at length about the problem of illegal immigration, among other MAGA obsessions.
Does this problem affect YOU in any tangible way ????
If not, why do you care about it???
If illegal immigration DOES affect you in some tangible way then explain, or STFU.
You seem to think that you are free to expound at length on this subject, but no one else is entitled to do so unless it “affects them in some tangible way “.
Apparently hypocrisy is required for admission to the MAGA cult.
I am proud MAGA, and I would never knowingly hire illegal immigrants. I also believe the immigration laws should be enforced, child sex trafficking across the southern border should end, fentanyl trafficking along the southern border should end and there should be fewer than 100,000 opioid overdoes deaths per year in America, young girls and women should not be raped and brutally murdered by illegal immigrants, and illegal immigrants should not be invading in the millions to oust the lowest wage-earning Americans from their jobs. I guess that makes me a cult member, since those positions are so ridiculous, right?
Now, I don’t pretend to know about what the general population of farmers who also call themselves proud MAGA are doing, in terms of hiring or refraining from knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. I have not talked to them personally, and I have not seen any reporting on that particular topics. But apparently you have, although you won’t admit it, which is odd since you’re making these claims about them as a group.
Now, about Kid Rock. I am not familiar with the case. I generally don’t trust the first news reports that come out since the news media are basically in the business of lying and smearing Republicans. Therefore, I’ll reserve judgment on Kid Rock until I have confidence that I know the facts. If it turns out that he is, indeed, hypocritical, I will not approve of such actions on his part. But nobody died and made me the Kid Rock police to enforce anything against him. All I can do is disapprove if it turns out that he has been acting hypocritically.
P.S. You must be really steamed about Bernie Sanders flying around on private jets to rail against oligarchs and global warming. Same with John Kerry. I’m sure you’re very, very upset at their hypocrisy, right?
In what universe? Tragedy. Absolute tragedy…
RIP Jocelyn Nungaray, Lakin Riley and so many more. My God, what horrible deaths but I need a hamburger.
Yes, unsubstantiated and flat out wrong! Kid Rock didn’t hire those folks; he doesn’t even run the restaurant as overall Mangement, as it’s licensed to someone else.
Blue state progressives are by far the worst offenders: The top five states hosting the largest share of undocumented agricultural workers are:
California (49 percent)
Washington (9 percent)
Florida (7 percent)
Texas (5 percent)
Oregon (4 percent)
See that’s what I mean about waiting enough time for the true facts to come out before passing judgment. Our anonymous commenter above is ready to jump on the first story from a left-wing propaganda outfit to say anything about Kid Rock’s restaurant, and then leaps to conclusions about rank hypocrisy (which he capitalizes because otherwise I wouldn’t have been able to read the word).
The people I know only hire French or English nannies? What are you talking about?
That’s who we are. Eye roll…
What a bad joke
You’re exactly right.
Yes, we’re the Morlocks and the surfact dwellers are the gentle Eloi. H. G. Wells, The Time Machine.
^^ surface.
After a 100 years you will have no evidence heaven exists. You’ll be scrambling around as now killing and harming children, robbing and looting. What a good job!
That is the owner/employer’s fault for illegally hiring illegals as workers. Disregarding federal law comes with consequences. Quit blaming law enforcement officer just doing their jobs.
Jake
What the hell is wrong with you ????
I’m not blaming law enforcement for doing their job.
If that is what you got from the comment, then you are seriously mentally impaired.
The point I am making is that Kid Rock is a full blown MAGA extremist who supports Trump’s position on immigration, and wants to “build the wall”.
Nevertheless he employs undocumented workers in his restaurant.
TOTAL HYPOCRISY !!!!!!
“You really can’t make this stuff up !!!!!”
Except that you CAN and DO all the time.
So please provide cites – not to the MSM – but to actual primary sources.
Googling turns out TWO sources.
Both of which contradict significant elements of your story.
First the Resteraunts are Kid Rock THEMED – they are NOT owned or managed by Kid Rock.
These resteraunts pay Kid Rock to use his name, that is all. It is called branding.
Kid Rock has NOTHING to do with the management and operation of these resuraunts.
Next the claim that the resturants shut down is from an anonymous source.
Everyone who went on the record said the resturaunts remained opened.
And NO ONE has reported on the actual number of illegals working in these places.
It could be one of 100.
Regardless like usual – a left wing story turns out to be something quite different with actual facts.
Reason Magazine, considered a conservative libertarian news outlet with close association to the conservative CATO Institute wrote a great piece about the current situation in history.
Trump has not only violated 200 years of constitutional precedent and case law, but over 800 years of the concept of law dating back to English Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights.
Apparently England had a really bad king back then King Charles that was a tyrant. Eventually the nation of England actually executed this king.
Then England created an English Bill of Rights. Kings and monarchs had to start following rules. English property owners and citizens had rights for several hundred years.
Then King George (possibly Trump’s mentor) came along and violated the English Bill of Rights. The English property owners, English citizens and subjects (American colonists) hated this tyrant.
So the American colonists wrote the “Declaration of Independence” against this Trump-like king in England. Anyone that studies history might want to let Trump in on it! It never ends well!
So the American colonists wrote the “Declaration of Independence” against this Trump-like king in England.
This is the kind of garbage that passes for logic in the rarified atmosphere of the Chinese Communist Party and its mindless drones like anonymous here.
gigi, stop pretending that you are a lawyer and stop pretending to hide your silliness by posting as anonymous your twisted reasoning on us.
I used to read reason magazine but quit because it became quite liberal . Libertarian News kicked Reason off their site saying hit had been take over by a bunch of communists. Reason is no longer conservative but a fake site trying to fool you and believe me they suffered from TDS from day one blaming the whole J6 thing on President Trump and siding with the fake new on Russian collusion. I don’t know about the Hunter laptop story because I had quit reading Reason by then.
There are good things on Reason and bad.
Reason is NOT conservative libertarian – it is just libertarian.
It has article by left libertarians and right libertarians.
Like all ideologies libertarians do not all beleive EXACTLY the same thing.
CATO is an independent Libertarian group.
Regardless, you make a bunch of claims – which you SAY come from some conservative at CATO.
Of course just like Reason – CATO is “just libertarian” – not conservative or liberal.
Though libertairans at CATO do NOT 100% agree on everything and some are more conservative while others are more liberal.
As to your rant about history – it is seriously warped. I hope that is because you mangled what your alleged Conservative from CATO actually said – because CATO is usually not so intellectually bankrupt.
The English Bill of Rights – unlike the American one, is unwritten, and it has changed over time.
The Magna Carte is one of the earliest efforts at establishing individual rights.
I would suggest that you READ IT. There is nothing in it that Trump has violated.
England has had a number of really bad rulers. Some have been executed – usually by others seeking to be King.
“Then England created an English Bill of Rights.”
There is no written english bill of rights and the unwritten english bill of rights has changed over time. Today it is pretty weak.
Kings and monarchs had to start following rules. English property owners and citizens had rights for several hundred years.
Who in the h311 educated you that you are so clueless about the rise of individual liberty ?
We ARE seeing violations of centuries of common law that we inherited from england, but these violations are by the US judiciary. In England Judges that pretend to be king get beheaded.
I would further note that King George most resembles Bush or Obama or Biden – most definitely NOT Trump.
The root of the american revolution was Georges efforts to get american colonists to pay off the Debt that George had created through lots of stupid wars.
Again where have you learned history ?
Then don’t quote Reason.
The Cato Institute is an American libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded in 1977 by Ed Crane, Murray Rothbard, and Charles Koch, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of Koch Industries.
When Political Mega-Donors Join Forces: How the Koch Network and the Democracy Alliance Influence
Organized U.S. Politics on the Right and Left –
harvard
That is when Reason change.
Soros, Koch Partner to Launch Foreign Policy Think Tank – philanthropynewsdigest
Koch Political Machine Vows to Fight to Deny Trump GOP Nomination in 2024 – time
Look Who’s Backing Biden’s Foreign Policy: The Kochs – politico
What everybody missed about Charles Koch’s “endorsement” of Hillary Clinton – salon
The Kochs’ Dangerous Game
What the Koch brothers have built isn’t a political network. It’s a trust. And it must be busted.
I am keenly aware that conservatives argue that the political conglomerate the Kochs and their allies have created is simply the mirror image of the interlocking nature of progressive activism in America. Their mantra is that we all do what they are doing and that the “vast left-wing conspiracy” is as large, powerful, and controlling as anything they have built. – – democracyjournal
Charles Koch is libertarian for himself and peasantry for the rest of us. He didn’t get his way in the Republican party so has now switched to the Democratic party working with George Soro and Koch is a dedicated TDS sufferer.