The Supreme Court discussion thread
7 States have passed bills this year which place new restrictions on abortion. Alabama's new law, in particular, is a ne
Musk spent at least 15 million on the election and Crawford still won.
The reason the injunctions have been happening so much recently is because Trump has been issuing so many EOs, including a lot which clearly exceed his authority.
Luciom, you said yourself that Trump was planning to push the limits of executive authority. You shouldn't be surprised when there is a push back.
He shouldn't be allowed to implement things which are very likely to be ruled unconstitutional but just take awhile to get through the courts.
Musk spent at least 15 million on the election and Crawford still won.
Who is supposed to handle the enforcement of rules against buying votes?
Can someone in Minnesota go after Musk?
Who is supposed to handle the enforcement of rules against buying votes?
Can someone in Minnesota go after Musk?
Someone in the court system there tried to sue... The state AG maybe?
I guess it didn't stop him.
I think the PAC is doing a bit of a bait and switch, and is probably why its "legal", where they aren't actually randomly selecting people. They are either using pre-selected people or selecting people who sign based on a story. It always seems to come out that the "winner" is either not receiving money or is a team members son or whatever.
Assuming that is the case no clue how they can false advertise but whatever. I'm sure the guy behind "appreciating robotaxis within the next year" (2019) has figured out a loophole
Yes, both in federal law and in Wisconsin state law. (I mistakenly referred to Minnesota earlier).
Yes, both in federal law and in Wisconsin state law. (I mistakenly referred to Minnesota earlier).
Musk tried something similar already in october 24 and Biden DOJ refused to press charges.
But in that case it was construed as a raffle among signatories of a theoretical non partisan petition to uphold the 1a and the 2a and who were registered as voters in a swing state.
States for a while appeared to have evaluated the angle of an unregulated giveway (so consumer fraud potentially) but given participation was completly free they didn't pursue that.
This time i am pretty sure Wisconsin AG can try under Wisconsin law , while i don't think Bondi will do anything at the federal level obviously.
When i will be able to i will source you the data on nationwide applicable TROs to presumtpive classes historically, and you will see the vast majority of them had been issues by judges appointed by democrats presidents in the last 10 years, like a lot more than half the total since your country exists.Which cases do you have in mind for ex under the Biden admin of district cou
How many times have I told you that this has absolutely nothing to do with class actions, which are a different thing entirely.
If you want examples, just google "Obama administration enjoined" or "Biden administration enjoined."
Yes, it is happening more often now. That's because Trump is utterly indifferent to whether his actions can withstand legal scrutiny. On some level, I think he views these situations as a win-win because every adverse legal decision gives him an opportunity to whip up anger at the judiciary. And you are lapping it up, whether you realize it or not.
How many times have I told you that this has absolutely nothing to do with class actions, which are a different thing entirely.If you want examples, just google "Obama administration enjoined" or "Biden administration enjoined."Yes, it is happening more often now. That's because Trump is utterly indifferent to whether his actions can withstand legal scrutiny. On some level, I
But that's what the law proposal refers to as well. It has to do with putative classes or whatever the name is for extending the order to someone who is not the plaintiff.
If a state sues Biden for the student debt relief EO and the court finds standing it can order that relief to end for all, i can see that.
If 5 people being deported sue because they think they shoulnd't be, the judge should only be able to order them not to be deported, and no one else. Then sure that's decision will become case law for other judges considerations but why the automatism , the extension to other people being deported, even if in similar circumstances, if they haven't sued as members of a class?
What's the name for the idea that the judge can order stuff that applies to people other than the plaintiffs, as a TRO?
But that's what the law proposal refers to as well. It has to do with putative classes or whatever the name is for extending the order to someone who is not the plaintiff.If a state sues Biden for the student debt relief EO and the court finds standing it can order that relief to end for all, i can see that.If 5 people being deported sue because they think they shoulnd't be, th
Grassley is seeking to require class certification in cases seeking nationwide injunctions. That would be a change in law, and a bad one. If an EO violates the law on its face, plaintiffs shouldn't be required to meet the commonality and predominance requirements of a class action in order to get relief.
It most certainly is not required under existing law, which is why Grassley is seeking to change the law.
If an order violated the First Amendment on its face, would you require people to meet the standards for a class action in order to avoid being muzzled?
-Requires parties seeking universal relief against the government to use the class action process to show that class-wide relief is proper
/
The law i talked about in post 3541 to which you replied, "Judicial Relief Clarification Act of 2025" sponsored by Grassley
-Requires parties seeking universal relief against the government to use the class action process to show that class-wide relief is proper
/
The law i talked about in post 3541 to which you replied, "Judicial Relief Clarification Act of 2025" sponsored by Grassley
Read my post above
another beating for the fifth circuit appeal court which keeps making determinations that I fully agree with in spirit but that lack legal defensibility enough that SCOTUS has to strike them down
this time on the brutale, unconstitutional FDA war on vaping.
5th circuit really has to step up the game and write better decisions, and the people forum shopping to get 5th circuit appeal decisions have to improve as well, get far better amicus briefs and so on.
As someone who has always absolutely detested cigarette smoke, I think the fight against vaping is completely misguided. It's not nearly as bad for you as smoking tobacco, and I have had someone sit next to me at the poker table vaping and it didn't even bother me a bit. I understand the idea is that vaping is particularly attractive to children, but who cares? Children used to smoke actual cigarettes which was much worse for them.
ah btw chillrob related to the non-delegation we discussed previously, it's interesting to note that under very strict non-delegation, the president wouldn't have any power to affect tariffs at all, as that's an explicit power of Congress so it couldn't be delegated to the executive.
The president might still have some power to outright ban or restrict some trade for security reason but no broad delegation at setting tariffs
ah btw chillrob related to the non-delegation we discussed previously, it's interesting to note that under very strict non-delegation, the president wouldn't have any power to affect tariffs at all, as that's an explicit power of Congress so it couldn't be delegated to the executive.The president might still have some power to outright ban or restrict some trade for security re
I have been thinking recently that it seems wrong that the president can unilaterally impose tariffs. But apparently it's because he has declared a 'state of emergency' related to fentanyl deaths (which have actually greatly decreased in the last few years).
I suppose congress enacted that power transfer at some point in the past. I believe the senate just voted for a measure to end that state of emergency, but it will likely fail in the house.
I have been thinking recently that it seems wrong that the president can unilaterally impose tariffs. But apparently it's because he has declared a 'state of emergency' related to fentanyl deaths (which have actually greatly decreased in the last few years). I suppose congress enacted that power transfer at some point in the past. I believe the senate just voted for a measure t
wrong or not "morally" or in a "does it make sense?" connotation is important politically of course.
but the fact that he can impose random unjustified (by committee, numbers and so on) tariffs just because "emergency" is (under non delegation) completely unconstitutional, that was my point.
the same logic that would strip the FDA of any regulatory setting powers, only allowing congress to determine which substances are legal to produce sell and consume or not and to which degree, would work for the president and tariffs.
congress can certainly in it's "infinite wisdom", delegate whatever entity or individual for counsel, but the final decision about explicit congressional constitutional powers (like setting tariffs or deciding a substance is illegal for consumption for everyone or for a set of people) should always, no exception, require a vote by both chambers on congress (according to their own rules), and the veto option for the president (if applicable depending on the size of the majority in Congress).
NO exception.
yes Congress passed the IEEA like in the 70s (iirc maybe it was a tad later) which is what Trump is using for these tariffs.
my point is that under the (admittedly minoritaria for now) judicial philosophy of non delegation, that is not legal under the federal constitution. that delegation is moot as congress CANNOT do that, it has to keep the need for a vote to give legal power to those determinations by the president at the very least
The birthright citizenship order looks doomed constitutionally (as expected), but as we discussed previously the main attempt there was to intervene against district court use of universal injuctions covering non-plaintiffs.
According to Politico, the court seems sympathetic with the idea of reforming/restricting the use of those injunctions
The birthright citizenship order looks doomed constitutionally (as expected), but as we discussed previously the main attempt there was to intervene against district court use of universal injuctions covering non-plaintiffs.
According to Politico, the court seems sympathetic with the idea of reforming/restricting the use of those injunctions
I agree with your assessment about where this is headed, but it's easy to construct an extreme scenario where it would seem insane for a district court not to be able to issue a nationwide injunction.
For example, imagine that the federal government announces that, beginning this afternoon, it intends to summarily execute 20,000 inmates in federal prison each day until the federal prisons are empty. At that rate, all inmates in federal prisons would be dead within eight days. The federal government doesn't even bother with the pretense of claiming that the executions comply with constitutional law. Rather, it simply states that it will honor any court order that is issued prior to an individual inmate's day of execution. No class action could proceed quickly enough to save even a single prisoner, so it would be up to each of the nearly 160,000 inmates to file a lawsuit and obtain a stay of execution prior to his or her number coming up.
The birthright citizenship order looks doomed constitutionally (as expected), but as we discussed previously the main attempt there was to intervene against district court use of universal injuctions covering non-plaintiffs.
According to Politico, the court seems sympathetic with the idea of reforming/restricting the use of those injunctions
Everything I've seen has the court mostly allowing these injunctions.
I agree with your assessment about where this is headed, but it's easy to construct an extreme scenario where it would seem insane for a district court not to be able to issue a nationwide injunction. For example, imagine that the federal government announces that, beginning this afternoon, it intends to summarily execute 20,000 inmates in federal prison each day until the fed
I don't know procedural details well enough but your example is when an appeal court or SCOTUS should use emergency powers to stop those events very quickly, nationwide.
I don't know procedural details well enough but your example is when an appeal court or SCOTUS should use emergency powers to stop those events very quickly, nationwide.
That isn't how it works. Appellate courts can't just jump in and start making rulings without a lower court decision to review if the case is egregious enough.
That isn't how it works. Appellate courts can't just jump in and start throwing out rulings if the case is egregious enough.
Isn't there some kind of situation where the Supreme Court can act on something without it first going through lower courts? Seems like that has happened within the last several years.
How many times have I told you that this has absolutely nothing to do with class actions, which are a different thing entirely.If you want examples, just google "Obama administration enjoined" or "Biden administration enjoined."Yes, it is happening more often now. That's because Trump is utterly indifferent to whether his actions can withstand legal scrutiny. On some level, I
Btw do you now see why it actually HAS TO DO WITH CLASS ACTIONS?
That isn't how it works. Appellate courts can't just jump in and start throwing out rulings if the case is egregious enough.
Can't SCOTUS just outline a procedure where plaintiffs at the district level can immediatly ask for review at appellate level (immediatly after filing at the district level, without waiting for the district level decision that would only apply to the defendants there), in order to seek a nationwide injuction because of egregious violations , and then it's the appeal court that can very rapidly intervene?
