17 Comments
User's avatar
David J. Sharp's avatar

Tragic—apparently facts have become arbitrary; and jurisdictional questions don’t matter if one of the litigants is a Republican pol.

Expand full comment
Jonathan's avatar

Doubly nuts since the court has an independent obligation to ensure that it has jurisdiction, and challenges to jurisdiction can be raised at any time. I'm going full Legal Realist, baby

Expand full comment
Susan Linehan's avatar

doesn't this lend itself to cases where there isn't even a PLAUSIBLSE case for preemption? Say DOJ sues a state that has a large latino-citizen population with a law that has for decades declared that ballots have to be in Spanish and English. DOJ claims this violates trumps EO about English being the only official language. Racist state AG simply agrees and signs a consent judgement striking down the law. Instant voter suppression. And no one able to appeal it.

Expand full comment
WCS's avatar

Boom.

Expand full comment
Lance Khrome's avatar

Can a public-interest law firm file a "counter-suit" on the behalf of OK immigrant students directly affected by this action by the "partners"? I mean, completely apart from this particular case, as surely those students have *standing* in a separate filing?

Expand full comment
Frances Sterling's avatar

Good idea

Expand full comment
Phil Johnson's avatar

"Quis custodes custodientes?"

This stuff is getting old. My Latin isn't what it used to be back in the day... sorry.

Expand full comment
Frances Sterling's avatar

A lot of things aren't as good as they used to be. We as a people were DUMB enough to fall for his con not once but twice.

Expand full comment
Phil Johnson's avatar

Could not agree more; I did not vote for him either time and hoped that we all would have learned something from 2016 et seq.. But, Nooooooooo.....

Expand full comment
Michael's avatar

Actually outrageous.

Expand full comment
Dtss's avatar

What is the remedy? Is this ruling appealable?

Expand full comment
David J. Sharp's avatar

I’m guessing that disposing of in-state tuition for immigrants is better done by a less public judge than political debate in the legislature.

Expand full comment
Frances Sterling's avatar

As per usual, DJT is cheating and gaming the system. Every one must obey every technicality of the law when he uses to break it. If he were as smart as he thinks he would obey it. Then it wouldn't be so obvious he is both corrupt and ignorant!

Expand full comment
Dennis W.'s avatar

Okay, another WTF!

Expand full comment
Michael Curry's avatar

Plausibility is beside the point. There has to be a case or controversy. Was a suit even filed?

Expand full comment
Ken's avatar

This is just mean. It does no one any benefit. Actually, it will harm the colleges and universities immediately if people have to drop out.

Expand full comment
Ken's avatar

Damn things, also brings back sad memories. This event may cause suicides. I had a paper route with university housing. I had a married couple customer and one was a Veterinary Medicine student. They both loved Tolkien and had a Middle Earth map on their wall, which I immediately identified. He failed a big test and committed suicide by hanging; I was afraid to collect the final month and by the time I went by, the wife was gone.

I loved the O.S.U. library. Even though I was just a high school student, nobody bothered me and I read books in the Ancient History section when I could. It was quiet and there’s a view from the windows.

Anyway, this may traumatize some people. Some studies are hard enough already.

Expand full comment