Illinois has now joined California and Connecticut in barring federal immigration agents from conducting “civil arrests” of illegal aliens in or around state courthouses. The sanctuary law appears largely performative since it also appears unconstitutional. It is difficult to see how a state can bar the exercise of federal jurisdiction, at least after the Civil War.
Gov. JB Pritzker has been ratcheting up the rhetoric against ICE and the Trump Administration for months, including analogies to the Nazis and claims that democracy is dying. The new law, however, crosses the constitutional Rubicon by not only limiting the operation of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) but also establishing a 1,000-foot “buffer zone” outside of buildings.
The law makes courthouses equivalent to churches, where suspects can claim sanctuary not only when they cross the threshold but also within 1000 feet, unless, of course, ICE ignores the law.
Recently, the chief judge in Cook County issued an order with the same prohibition. A few other judges in other states have issued similar orders.
The authority for the orders is highly dubious.
The federal government can cite laws mandating the arrest of certain individuals for immigration violations. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) (mandatory detention of certain aliens who are removable due to criminal convictions or terrorist activities); id. § 1231(a) ( detention and removal of aliens with final orders of removal).
The most immediate problem for Illinois is the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof[] . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land[] . . . any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2.
The second problem is the Supreme Court, which has repeatedly rejected such state authority to dictate federal enforcement or policies. See, e.g., Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580, 588–89 (1952) (the United States has the “exclusive[]” control over “any policy toward aliens”); see also South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505, 523 (1988); Mayo v. United States, 319 U.S. 441, 445 (1943).
Ironically, as I have previously pointed out, these blue states will face an unusual authority cited against them: Barack Obama. It was President Obama who went to the Supreme Court to strike down state laws that interfered with federal immigration enforcement (even in assisting that enforcement). In Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 394 (2012), he largely prevailed and the Supreme Court affirmed that “[t]he Government of the United States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens.”
This recognized authority goes back to the Nineteenth Century. The Court has ruled that “Congress [has] the right, as it may see fit, to expel aliens of a particular class, or to permit them to remain,” and “has undoubtedly the right . . . to take all proper means to carry out the system which it provides.” Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698, 714 (1893).
The law also creates the ability to sue federal authorities for false imprisonment under state law.
Keep in mind that the law creates a 1,000-foot circle around any state court, creating safe zones for illegal immigrants.
The provision in the Senate legislation stated:
Section 15.
Civil arrest prohibited; certain locations.
(a) A person duly and in good faith attending a State court proceeding in which the person is a party, a witness, a potential witness, or a court companion of a party, witness, or potential witness is privileged from civil arrest while going to, remaining at, and returning from the court proceeding, including:
(1) at the place of the court proceedings;
(2) within the courthouse building;
(3) on the premises of the courthouse, including parking facilities serving the courthouse;
(4) on any sidewalk, parkway, and street surrounding the courthouse and its premises; and
(5) on any public way within 1,000 feet of the courthouse including a sidewalk, parkway, or street.
Presumably, if you rent an apartment within one of those zones, you would be able to create effective immunity by simply signing a lease. As long as you stay within the specified public areas, you will be protected from civil arrest. With Illinois and other states pushing apps tracking ICE operations, a suspect could step outside onto a sidewalk or public space to claim protection from any civil arrest. It is unclear whether landlords will raise their rents in light of the new immunity amenity.
Keep in mind, if this were constitutional, the state could add to the list of sensitive places from city services to clinics. The result would be a mosaic of safety zones that would be maddening for federal authorities. Notably, blue states have attempted the same tactic to circumvent Second Amendment rights.
The legal infirmities behind these laws is irrelevant for politicians seeking to virtue signal. However, it will come at a real cost for individuals who mistakenly rely on these assurances and assume that they are protected within safe zones.
Many states during the desegregation period challenged federal authority in the fight against civil rights. They also failed.
Of course, the greatest irony is that the two figures who will be cited against this move are the two favorite sons of Illinois who became presidents: Lincoln and Obama. Both reinforced the supremacy of federal jurisdiction.
Indeed, the bill was passed just a couple days before the anniversary of Lincoln’s election as the 16th President of the United States. He then faced states that claimed that they could take the ultimate step of removing themselves from federal authority and jurisdiction.
Illinois now claims the right to dictate where federal authority can be exercised and makes federal authorities liable for violating specified state safe zones.
Good luck with that.
This column also appeared on Fox.com
Wouldn’t it be great if all it took was a quick Schoolhouse Rock lesson on the Supremacy Clause to fix this? Unfortunately, the problem isn’t lack of knowledge — it’s willful defiance. These officials know exactly what the Constitution says; they just think their ideology outranks it.
Civic ignorance can be cured by education. Arrogance in power takes something stronger.
CIVIC IGNORANCE? THE VOTE OF THE “POOR” IS COUNTERINTUITIVE AND TERMINAL
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
“It’s the [one man, one vote democracy], stupid!”
– James Carville
___________________
The Founders established a severely restricted-vote republic.
Turnout was 11.6% in 1789 by design; voters were required generally to be male, European, and 21 with 50 lbs. Sterling or 50 acres under restrictions set by state legislatures.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“the people are nothing but a great beast…
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.”
– Alexander Hamilton
_________________________
“The true reason (says Blackstone) of requiring any qualification, with regard to property in voters, is to exclude such persons, as are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will of their own.”
“If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote… But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other.”
– Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 1775
_____________________________________________________
“[We gave you] a republic, if you can keep it.”
– Ben Franklin, 1787
_______________________
You couldn’t.
The Biden Administration’s (note that I did not say Biden’s) lawless actions regarding our borders and illegal immigration are a major threat to the nation.
Trump’s response seems quite measured and rational but insufficient. Did our compatriots on the Left think that their treason at the border would go unanswered? Did they think we would look at 10-20 million illegals as water under the bridge?
We need to shut down all immigration and it needs to remain shut down until all illegals are removed.
In 2017 or so IIRC there was a Princeton study that estimated the population of illegals in the country at 22 million. Add to that the 12 million estimate for the Biden Administration’s treasonous actions and we get to 34 million. Assuming lots of uncounted illegals and the real number is probably somewhere North of 40 million.
Up the removal budget and get to work. Maybe Americans will learn to work and maybe some starter homes will come on the market.
It is quite simple, Congress passed immigration laws, ICE duty is to enforce those laws. These sanctuary cities and states are impeding ICE from carrying out those laws passed by Congress. Looks more like an insurrection than January 6th ever did.
It certainly would be interesting, if not entertaining, to see what would happen if an Illinois politician, mayor, or if a State or local police officer were arrested for interfering with ICE during an alien arrest that was legal under federal immigration law. A photo of a mayor and Governor as cellmates would be priceless, and would more likely than not stop this State-sponsored lawlessness there, and elsewhere.
We’ve witnessed numerous incidents where state and city governments have purposefully legislated against the Supremacy Clause. I’ve seen video of pritzker orating against the federal government in ways so similar to George Wallace railing on the steps of his capital building.
I think what we are waiting to see are these people being arrested.
And why would that be? I believe that we know that if that were done we would, indeed, be in a civil war.
Does anyone have suggestions as to how to deal with recalcitrant progressives who are now playing a game of chicken with the constitution.
Suggestion, yeah. Shut up you racist pedo.
Legislating and orating are not crimes, and can’t be. They’re constitutionally protected. Even “sanctuary states” are constitutionally protected — they cannot be coerced in any way to assist federal law enforcement. Not even by cutting federal funding so severely that they’re left without a choice but to cooperate.
But they can’t interfere. When ICE comes calling states are entitled to order their officers not to lift a finger to help them, not to give them information, not to allow them onto state property without a warrant from an Article 3 judge. But they’re not entitled to lift a finger to obstruct them either. They must simply stand aside and let ICE do its job unaided but unhindered. The moment an officer actively obstructs ICE, he has committed a federal crime and is subject to arrest.
Unfortunately the legislators and politicians who made the purported laws and gave the purported orders under which such an officer acts can’t be arrested for it. They didn’t commit the crime, the officer did, and should have known better.
If states and cities can ignore federal law, can individuals ignore city/county property tax law and just not pay their tax? Sounds good to me.
So, it would appear that the endgame for these progs is total anarchy where no law is respected and anything goes. Where is Ms Bondi????
Appear? Now where did you get that stoopid idea? Your warped mind.
What do you think anarchy is:
Anarchy: Disorder due to non-recognition of authority.
That is exactly what Democrats are pushing since ICE is following federal laws.
States are not in the same relationship with the USA as individuals are with their state. The tenth amendment gives states a good deal of protection from federal law — but that protection only goes so far. Sanctuary states are entitled to refuse the federal government all assistance and cooperation, but they are not entitled to actively interfere with it. When they do so they cross the line.
What bothers me is that lawyers who supposedly took classes in constitutional law, would write such an unconstitutional law with a straight face. Then another lawyer not strike it down only for the courts to strike it down. Perhaps that is the point. More money for the lawyers employed by or contracted with the government. I am sure that it is on both sides but it seems to prevail on the Democratic side. Is there not a law or board that can deny or revoke a license to practice in such cases? Or are they filled with friends and family?
No. Legislatures are entitled to make whatever laws they like, regardless of whether they’re valid. An invalid law is of course of no effect, but making it is not a crime. Nor can a legislator lose any kind of license for voting for an invalid law; they have the same immunity under state law that congressmen have under the US constitution.
This is more proof that we have judges throughout our country not following the constitution. This is a true threat to our Republic.
Step one: Pass stupid, unconstitutional, ineffectual, performative law.
Step two: Federal agency ignores stupid, unconstitutional, ineffectual, performative law.
Step three: Scream that the Administration is “lawless”, “fascist”, and a “threat to Democracy”.
Sounds like a plan.
As for lawless, glad you pointed that out.
Trump is a fascist because he is lawless.
Well then, Obama started the Russian collusion against Trump before Trump came into office; Biden allowed millions illegals into the country — as did his VP, Attorney Generals created lawsuits against Trump and now call ‘foul’ because they have broken the law … the list goes on. It seems to many who have no power to corrupt, power of those ‘in power’ all needs to be checked. The first real offender is Biden when he broke his oath of office by opening the borders. Was this not a reason for impeachment? And, now we find that he went after Senators … seems those who hate Trump need to step back and imagine this was them and the government could go after them.
We are all Americans and when our Constitution isn’t followed — in any administration — there is reason for concern. Those who are offended by ICE, start by paying your ‘fair share’ for your deeply held beliefs that illegals can have the rights of American citizens. Time to really put your money where your mouth is!!! Please send 10% of your salaries to the federal government to pay for hotels, Medicare, legal fees, food, etc., for the illegals you so ‘courageously’ support.
You know when a small mind shows up make a point… a whatabout is the response. That is not an argument.
One must wonder if empowering the courts to so nullify and disregard does not itself amount to secession; but how ironic ehh? That Lincoln’s state should now opt to secede?
Secession you say. No it does not. Take off that tin hat.
Secession ? that depends on your definition – it is 10 times closer to succession than the protests on J6 were to insurrection.
Regardless, it is as Turley notes state defiance of the constitution.
It is also stupid.
ICE arrests at courthouses are nearly always of alleged criminals.
Are those the people you most wish to protect ?
Further – while democrats can argue some humanitarian purpose in opposing ICE generally.
The failure to actively cooperate with ICE with regard to those in state custody is just stupid.
Do you really want to be standing up for rapists, murders drug dealers and wife beaters ?
here’s a defintion from AIU:
Constitution is silent on the subject of secession, meaning it does not explicitly address or define the legality of a state leaving the Union.
While some argue that the absence of the word implies a right to secede, legal scholars and historical analysis indicate that the Constitution’s structure and key clauses, such as the Supremacy Clause and the Preamble’s reference to “posterity,” suggest the Union was intended to be perpetual and permanent.
The Supreme Court in Texas v. White (1869) ruled that unilateral secession is unconstitutional, affirming the permanence of the Union.
There is no greater group of hypocritical fascists than today’s Democrats. They shred the Constitution, incite violence, and promote insurrection.
You cannot not possibly know that to be fact. How little yo know of American history.
What part is not known ?
Turley demonstrates here the obvious shredding of the constitution – though there are many other examples.
The incitement to violence can be observed everyday – even prominent democrats talk about assassination,
If J6 was an insurrection then the left is already fully engaged in civil war.
Fortunately J6 was not an insurrection and democrats are merely being stupid.
Nancy Pelosi knew it wasn’t an insurrection but a very poorly executed protest. But she also knew that ‘if you name it, you can fight it’. She did know her history on this one!
Are we going to turn into England, where a member of Parliament advocates taking down the British flag in a district because people in that area t might be offended? Look to history and see where we are headed if this hate and anger doesn’t stop. Thanks JT for keeping us informed of the law — and lawlessness!
“What part is not known ?” Answer: The part that is not known.
There is no shredding you simpleton.
You’re just crazy!! Yes, we read about it! We see it! We The People know if happening everyday!! If you don’t agree than your probably on the side of the left. If you are just that, then you WII be on the wrong side of history! What the *uck make the left think they’ll win a civil war in this country?! Their awakening the sleeping giant.
so Democrats ban the rule of law?
How about we Just arrest the DEMOCRATS committing TREASON?
Who and where banned ROL?
Treason, you got receipts? Just because they stand in front of a camera and call trump names, is not treason.
This is not Treason.
This is abandonment of the rule of law.
We should NOT engage in the same stupid games the left does and pretend all political differences constitute crimes.
As Turley notes – if ICE/DHS choose to challenge these laws – they will win easily.
Just as the left will lose ultimately most of its lawfare against the Trump administration.
WE have a REAL problem with the courts in that easy cases keep requiring the Supreme court to step in and b**ch slap lower courts.
But again that is violations of the rule of law and the constitution – it is not sedition or Treason.
There is plenty of real crimes to go after many of these left wing nuts for without joining the lefts own game of calling everything Treason.
The left is dragging guillotines to all their protests. They are telegraphing their intent on mirroring the bloody french revolution – or at least their far too strong fondness for it.
Please DO NOT join them.
Resist the hyperboly call things what they are. Stay constrained by the rule of law. It will prevent you from punishing everyone you disagree with politically. It may prevent you from doing to those on the left what they would do to you if they had power.
But it offers the best hope of a return to the rule of law, an end to the chaos and getting to the point where the left can become rational or be ignored.
Before During and after the US revolution – we did NOT arrest and jail fellow americans who sided with the British.
That is a part of why the US is the greatest country in the world today, and the french revolution ended with Napoleanbecoming emporere of france.
Before During and after the US revolution – we did NOT arrest and jail fellow americans who sided with the British.
Yes, we did, actually. And we beat them up and stole all their property, and made them flee to Canada. It’s a rather shameful aspect of the Revolution, that we don’t like to talk about.
“Illinois has now joined California and Connecticut in barring federal immigration agents from conducting “civil arrests” of illegal aliens . . .”
So we have a repeat of the (unconstitutional) theory of state nullification. Remind me again which party is creating a “constitutional crisis.”
Oh stop hyperventilating. That is no repeat.
Just to remind you, its the Republicans party who created the crisis.
How have republicans created a crisis ? By enforcing US immigration law ?
Isn’t that a requirement of the oath that the president and all members of the federal government take ?
This is YOUR lawless mess and Republicans are cleaning it up.
It is what Trump and the GOP promised in the 2024 Election – and despite YOUR violent opposition, they are slowly delivering on.
You are living in your own lawless bubble. And will remain out of power for so long as you do.
How have republicans created a crisis ? So, rounding up Americans and deporting them, that’s hardly a basis for a crisis I guess. Their family and friends should accept it?
My mess? Violent opposition? So if I challenge someone’s comment here, I’m suddenly one of them?
Americans are not being rounded up or deported.
Anonymous 7:40AM-Enforcing the law is creating a crisis? Hm. Also going after the most serious criminals is what Trump said he would do if elected.
Lastly Mr. Homan wisely pointed out that if they arrested Illegals in a courthouse, usually things were well controlled by law enforcement and usually only the single arrest was made. He warned that if they had to track down Illegals out in the community that far more Illegals would end up being arrested because ICE would be confronting the Criminal illegal in their living places where often many of the other occupants were also Illegals. That would Lead to even more arrests. The actions of the local judges have worsened this and made it a public spectacle and hazarded these Illegals that were not being sought.
You don’t seem to see much of this spectacle, for the most part, in Red States. Usually if you do it’s a Blue city in a Red state. The Democratic Judges have made the process worse. They are not gods in their little cubbyholes, even if they think they are.
“Enforcing the law is creating a crisis?” The most serious criminals. Un… seems like homan is sweeping up Americans.
Gotta ask, how is someone a criminal when they have never been convicted of a crime? Probably because of skin color right?
If you step over the boarder, w/o a visa, from Mexico and stay for 10 seconds in the USA and turn back, that makes one a criminal?
Yes, it does.
“[H]ow is someone a criminal when they have never been convicted of a crime?”
When you enter a country (any country) illegally, you are by definition a criminal.
Try entering France or the UK illegally, and see what happens to you.
Enter America legally. Go through the immigration vetting process. Prove that you have an independent means of support. Enjoy your freedom.
No, no one is sweeping up Americans. Americans are being arrested when they commit crimes, just as always happens. But immigration sweeps are only sweeping up foreigners, by definition.
And one becomes a criminal the moment one commits a crime, not when one is later convicted of it.
What Happens When a State Law Conflicts With a Federal Law?
Learn how the U.S. legal system resolves contradictions between state and federal laws and how this hierarchy determines which authority applies. – legalclarity Published Jul 25, 2025
hen a state law appears to contradict a federal law, it can be confusing to know which one to follow. This situation arises in many contexts, including employment standards, environmental rules, and controlled substance policies. The existence of two levels of government, each creating laws, requires a clear method for resolving these conflicts.
The Supremacy Clause Explained
The U.S. Constitution resolves conflicts between state and federal laws through Article VI, Clause 2, known as the Supremacy Clause. This clause establishes a hierarchy where the Constitution, federal statutes, and U.S. treaties are the “supreme Law of the Land.” If a state law conflicts with a valid federal law, the federal law takes precedence.
18 U.S.C. 1501: Interfering With a Federal Officer Explained
legalclarity – Published Mar 28, 2025
Federal law makes it a crime to interfere with certain government officials while they are performing their duties. This offense is covered under 18 U.S.C. 1501 and applies to actions that obstruct, resist, or impede federal officers. The law is designed to protect federal operations and ensure officials can perform their work without unlawful interference.
Understanding this statute is important because violations can lead to criminal charges, penalties, and a legal process that requires careful navigation.
Prohibited Conduct
Various actions can lead to charges under 18 U.S.C. 1501, depending on how an individual interferes with a federal officer. The law covers both direct physical acts and INDIRECT METHODS of obstruction. Courts assess whether the interference was intentional when determining if a violation occurred.
Anyone interfering with a Federal officer, even a state or city police officer will get charged and face Federal prosecution. The laws are enacted so they can whine and complain when illegals get arrested in their courthouse.
More AI. Seems like folks just stopped thinking and now just use AI.
Since half the time you don’t know what you’re talking about, perhaps you might try AI to at least give the impression you’re not a dumbass.
Dumbass? Oh oh, sumone big mad. And you’re rational and intelligent?
Yep, but it’s correct in its interpretation.
Nullification 2.0. Which D governor is the modern John C. Calhoun? Either the rich guy in Springfield or the coiffed one in Sacramento; Newsom is probably the better choice for that role.
I thought I read somewhere where Trump’s favorite President was Andrew Jackson. Jackson said this in response to a letter from a correspondent in SC during the crisis:
“Tell the Nullifiers from me that they can talk and write resolutions to their hearts’ content. But if one drop of blood be shed there in defiance of the laws of the United States, I will hang the first man of them I can get my hands on to the first tree I can find.” (https://www.americanheritage.com/1832-one-hundred-and-fifty-years-ago). Nothing like that happened and cooler heads prevailed. There are very few cooler heads today.
It is the President’s job to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. It will be interesting to see who blinks first.
Trump is known for negotiating, but not for blinking
Whig98-I would disagree. Pritzker thinks he is John C, Calhoun.
Newsom thinks he is Jefferson Davis.
Calhoun huh? So where did you get that super power of reading peoples’ minds?
It’s not mind reading its a comparison of behaviors. We live in a Constitutional Republic. If you dont like the constitution use political means to change it. But in the meantime OBEY IT.
Who said anything about not liking the Constitution.
Really more Orval Faubus than Calhoun.
Reasonable take.
Oops see below – reasonable take
wondering where in “the law” it states that a president can withhold SNAP?
In what way is he doing that? You seem confused.
In the constitution, that says the president may only spend money appropriated by Congress. Congress refuses to appropriate money, so he can’t spend it.
This simmering political-legal stew is a looming danger in the USA. According to the National Center for State Courts (NCSC), nearly two-thirds (63%) of Americans expressed trust and confidence in state courts. Yet, 59% also say the word “political” can be used to describe the courts. In the Illinois situation, the two branches, executive and judicial, are acting in open concert. Pritzker’s political position is obvious, but the courts should at the very least understand the law. They do not.
BTW… Confidence in Federal courts is at a historic low (43% on bias), substantially due to partisan divide.
Those surveys are too blunt to be useful.
As an example people in Red State may support their courts which are mostly NOT involved in this assanine nonsense.
While people in blue states may support their courts for exactly the opposite reason – because they ARE involved in this nonsense.
My point is that you can not conclude from a survey regarding the confidence that people have in state courts, WHY they are supportive of state courts.
Further in my experience – as bad as federal courts are, generally state courts are worse.
While their political biases tend to match those of the state or locality and they generally do NOT get the questions of national political debate before them, That the quality of state court judge is piss poor and they are overall much worse on the law.
Is this a desperate attempt by Pritzker and judges to exert power that they lack? Or perhaps a misguided attempt by Pritzker and judges to establish Illinois as being outside the purview of federal laws? And yet, one suspects that they don’t turn down federal funds for Illinois. Concepts like hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance come to mind.
You want to see a KING.
_____________________________
Obama Caught on Camera Pushing Government Control of ‘Facts’ on Social Media [WATCH]
Remember when he used the IRS to shut down the tea party. Yeah that’s a king/Dictator!
Caught huh? And you’re the one who took it?
No, he did not shutdown the tea party. It died on its own; no help from democrats.
ATS the Tea Party did not die – it grew and became MAGA.
Please find anything in the Trump Platform – Agenda 47 that did not originate with the Tea Party.
0bama TRIED to shut it down. He failed, but he did a lot of damage. He ought to have been arrested and jailed for that, because it was in blatant defiance of the law, but he got away with it, and so did his henchwoman Lois Lerner.
John, there’s significant overlap between the TEA Party movement and MAGA, but also significant differences.
Get your popcorn now.
You still wanna see Ellis disrobed? Is that what the popcorn is for?
It is impolite to chew with your mouth open.
WOW typical dem
_________________________
A woke Portland-area BLM activist who served on the Clackamas County Commission until she resigned in disgrace earlier this year after being charged with multiple felonies for theft and fraud has fled to Europe ahead of trial. Melissa Fireside crossed into Mexico with her child and then got on a flight to Amsterdam. She had been allowed to bail out without an ankle monitor.
The child’s father contacted authorities about the missing boy. They had no clue.
Fireside is a Democrat who was championed by liberals for being a woke woman. She won against an incumbent conservative.
Typical, so all the dems are in Mexico now?
Tell the judges to pound sand. They have no power over this.
It would be nice if they could just ignore these rogue judges orders, but that’s just not the case. They have to be adjudicated likely by SCOTUS. The state knows and expects this but it accomplishes its goal of delaying enforcement by ICE. Lawfare continues unabated. In a bit of irony the Trump administration adheres to the lower court ruling until it is overturned on appeal. The Biden administration ignored SCOTUS rulings knowing there would be no accountability for their actions. And the Dems like to say Trump is a threat to democracy when it is really them.
If you’re talking about state judges, then no, their decisions don’t have to be taken to SCOTUS, they can just be ignored. Only federal judges’ rogue decisions have to be taken to SCOTUS.
By the way, no, Biden did NOT ignore any SCOTUS rulings. That’s a myth that’s irresponsibly spun by people on our side, and they shouldn’t do that because it hurts our credibility. We should stick to the truth, which after all supports us, and not try to gild the lily.
When SCOTUS told Biden that his student loan forgiveness program was not authorized by the statute he cited in its support, and that he’d misread the statute, he shut that program down. He then had his lawyers hunt for another statute that might authorize a similar program, and when he found one he quite properly relied on it to start a more limited program; the basis for that program was also challenged but never came to court before Trump won. Had it been struck down he would have shut it down too, and would have started searching for any remaining legal basis to act.
The point is that any court decision on a statute’s interpretation only applies to that statute. There was never a SCOTUS decision that “you can’t ever forgive student loans”. How could any court say that? On what basis? All a court can ever say is “This statute doesn’t mean what you think it means”.
replaying to your comment?