in Thursday oral discussion Trump v. Kasa, Inc. In the case of a “national injunction,” Judge Kagan put his finger on a definitive question in my opinion: if the district court would do so do not have Has the ability to issue a “national injunction”* against executive fraud; In other words, If they are limited to injunctions that apply only to certain parties/IES, then the court cannot serve as an effective check of illegal enforcement cases if they challenge government actions in their previous cases.
*It may be better to label these injunctions as “non-party injunctions” rather than “national injunctions.” It seems that hearing oral arguments and giving some judges heartburn on these injunctions is not that they work “national” (In other words, (Outside districts outside the court area, it is permitted to act), but they argue that it affects non-party rights.
Judge Kagan said, for discussion, for discussion, The presidential order of birthright Illegal about merit** – that is an unconstitutional act of the executive powers that violates both the 14th Amendment and many Supreme Court precedents (as most courts that have considered it have already concluded).
**This question on merit – whether birthright EO is a constitutional exercise of the power of the president – do not have At this point, in front of the court, the government, which was the political party that lost in the following courts, requested a review of Scotus. only Regarding the issue of whether the court’s injunction is valid, do not have On the fundamental merits of the plaintiff’s claims. It turned out to be a rather interesting omission – see below.
If you’re uncomfortable making this assumption, then you’re sure you have a birthright do not have Unconstitutional movement by the presidential forces, Make your own hypothesis here;Please think about what the President thinks about I did it Do that I’ll do it In your opinion, it is clearly and uncontroversial. For example, an order that requires the State Department to fire all Jews and African Americans in its workforce. An order to place the words “Christ is our Savior” on a one-dollar bill. An order declaring that ICE can perform a legitimate search whenever it determines that it is in the public interest. Please assume. ***
*** Judge Sotomayor used this hypothesis. “The new president says, “I have the right to take guns from everyone,” with so much gun violence happening in the country, and he sends the troops to grab everyone’s guns.”
Now imagine Able, Baker and Charlie getting injured due to this unconstitutional policy. For example, all their citizenship was revoked, but they were all born in the United States. They file a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Houston, claiming that EO is unconstitutional. They win. The court orders the government to revive citizenship.
There is nothing remotely controversial or offence above. The lawyers acknowledged that it would be appropriate for the district courts to not order the government to impose new citizenship policies. About Baker, And Charlie He then granted that the government would comply with the court’s orders and direct them to revive the plaintiff’s citizenship in that case.
But under the administration’s view of things, that’s as long as the district court goes.
[From the Administration’s Application for a Stay submitted to SCOTUS in this case, available here]
article III allows federal courts to exercise only “judicial powers,” and extends only to “judicial powers,” “litigation,” and “controversy.” Under that authority, the court may award “claims of infringement of an individual’s rights.” [the] Due to the efforts of illegal actions or fraudulent control by civilians. ” The court maintaining such a claim may provide appropriate relief to the challenger. For example, an injunction that prevents the enforcement of a challenging law or policy against that individual cannot provide relief to a stranger in a lawsuit. Section 3 does not grant federal courts the power to “execute general legal oversight of the legislative and administrative departments.” To reach beyond the litigator and order the action of the administrative department against a third party is not to determine a judicial debate, but to assume the position of authority over the actions of the government in another comparable department. [courts] Do not own it. ”
Supreme Court onlyThe administration can argue and declare the policy unconstitutional for those who are. do not have parties to any litigation, and Supreme Court only The government can order the equally competent Baker, Charlie to revoke their authentic citizenship as well, but in other judicial districts.
That’s not a completely unreasonable position. Because only the Supreme Court has truly national jurisdiction, they should be allowed to determine “land laws” rather than the district courts of Texas, Massachusetts and Colorado.
However, Judge Kagan identified a fatal flaw in the debate.
if [the government] Winning this challenge, we say there are no national injunctions and it must all be through individual cases, and I can’t see how individuals who are not treated equally as individuals who bring the cases have brought They will have the ability to bring us substantive questions…. In such cases, The government has not actually lost anything, so there is no incentive to bring this case to the Supreme Court.. Although we have lost many individual cases, this allows us to force EO to the majority of people to which it applies. . . . If the government is always losing, I suggest that, There’s no one else going to sue him. They’re all winning! it’s up to you, [the government]decide whether to take this case to us. If I were wearing your shoes, there’s no way to approach the Supreme Court in this case.
That’s exactly what happened here! As mentioned above, the government I didn’t do it Ask the court to consider the unfavourable finding that EO is “blatantly unconstitutional.” Why do you ask? Because if the State Department, DHS, ICE and other enforcement agencies want to operate under the new definition of citizenship, they know well enough that when the question comes to the court, that question is almost certain that it will come to the court. Instead, if we can remove these troublesome “non-party injunctions” then keeping one case and one plaintiff at a time will be completely satisfied, give you the right to appeal all the unfavourable decisions, and do the job of implementing EO on millions of people who are not parties to various litigation cases.
And paradoxically enough, the worse the executive’s actions – it’s clearer and unconstitutional – it’s more likely to lose All casesthat means that constitutional matter You will not reach the Supreme Court For a decisive ruling.
Smart, no? Another seam, or fault line, in the web of constitutional protection and separation of power, is exposed.
I consider this as a Deathly The objection to the rules prohibiting non-party injunctions in all cases is because we have failed what we might call the Hitler test. if We have a president who wanted to do Hitler, so will this rule help prevent that? It’s not a terriblely high bar, but the rules prohibiting non-party injunctions in all cases don’t end it. I think the majority of courts will at least be a little troubled by the rules that will act this evil legal incentive in an outrageously unconstitutional way. I hate to predict the direction that the court may move on to this issue, but it does not appear to have a majority support for a blanket ban on non-party injunctions. And I think the courts are likely to find an intermediary position that spells out conditions that are allowed for non-party injunctions and are within the discretion of the district court. I’ll check if I’m right about it.
