Justice Barrett wrote the 6-3 decision that created more complications than it provided answers. Stark dissents questioned the ruling's effect on the rule of law.
J Barrett, returning to the good graces of her reactionary brethren, after a couple of early "swing-y" departures from the usual 6-3 split...welcome back, Amy! If I understood the decision properly, not only does the "thirty-day period" allow district courts to sort out next steps, but the Court also directs tRump/Miller/DOJ to prepare rules and regs for implementing this EO "amendment" to the Constitution's 14th A guarantee of birthright citizenship.
Thirty days for the lower courts to hear modified filings, to sort out Rule 23 certification of class-action suits based upon potential loss of citizenship for certain new-born nation-wide, to attend to other roadblocks thrown up by the opinion. How can the majority ignore the enormous consequences of THIS particular decision, which purports to ONLY limit district court injunctions to the parties and districts in which a case is filed, yet chooses as a vehicle a case that by its very nature has nation-wide implications?
Hands thrown up in the air, with much head-shaking as well.
Excellent analysis. Barrett just adds more steps to adjudication … which (tacitly) allows the DoJ to ignore more steps. Next up, the “paper bag test” for litigants.
Very perplexing: SCOTUS rules on rules, not constitutionality or merits, and sends cases back to the lower courts … whose findings it ignores. Trump trumps, and justice is not just blinded but maimed.
I don't think the issue is ripe for adjudication on the merits. It has not been properly litigated in the lower courts and intermediate appellate courts.
I'm still trying to figure out what remedies may still be available after CASA. Can lower courts still enter injunctions applicable within the boundaries of their districts or circuits? Or can relief only go to named or class plaintiffs?
Screw Barrett. Screw Kavanaugh. Screw the rest of the small-minded, petty, useless SCOTUS cons.
Let's talk about Sotomayor and Jackson, both of whom must be exhausted this week, writing forcefully about the harms this SCOTUS will inflict on the country. Doing so fearlessly, and without pretense to some form of faux civility.
We already know SCOTUS cons have tossed aside any pretense of following the law, or even attempting to follow the law, but it's important to have dissents that plainly call out their bad actions.
Because all of the SCOTUS con actions will be reversed someday, and the seed for their reversals are in the dissents.
You think that situation is improved by allowing individual district judges to issue ultimate remedies? By the way, the injunctions and issue here aren't even final.
They were preliminary.
The issues cry out for statutory codification or even Constitutional mendment. The notion that individuals appointed to a district court acquire immediate ultimate wisdom Is absurd. (I know judges who I wouldn't trust to pick up my laundry efficiently.) There is also the practical reality that the only real authority a court has is its moral standing, which is being more and more undercut.
I repeat, the real issue. Here is Congressional failure. Running from the threat of executive supremacy to embrace judicial supremacy is literally Chicken Littles running into the cave to escape the falling sky.
I’m trying to understand the ramifications if most of the country no longer has birthright citizenship, if temporarily. People lose their rights under the law? Can’t vote, get health benefits, passport, work This effects millions of people. Is this correct?
Obviously, not happening. Her response to Jackson's dissent speaks volumes. Amy knows who her owners are, and she does not care about the American people or the rule of law.
The notion that an opinion such as this undercuts "the rule of law" Is one of the most cynical that has been articulated. It presupposes the lowly district Court judges are free from bias, prejudice and their own particular value judgments in interpreting law and the Constitution. Constitution. Every practical lawyer knows that is not so. The practice of issuing universal injunctions had to stop. It should be regulated by Congress, but in this day and age that's not going to happen. The Court did its best.
Are not the Appellate Courts in place to address whatever "bias, prejudice and [the lower districts'] particular judgments in interpreting law and the Constitution"? And what about the States? What is the remedy when the government takes illegal and/or unconstitutional action against a group of States. Can States file a class action suit or must every State file a separate claim in District Court and obtain an appealable injunction in each case until such time that one of the cases reaches the Supreme Court? That is untenable given that certain appellate courts support an administration that issues unconstitutional orders (talk about ""bias, prejudice and particular [peculiar] judgments" , leaving the citizens of that appellate court district subject to unconstitutional acts until the Supreme Court decides whether to accept or deny an emergency application and temporarily stop the injustice?
Like Presidential immunity, this is a subject too large to be decided by decisional authority. The scope of the available remedies to an ordinary district Court is something that should be defined statutorily. The notion that a particular district Court will give a clear dispassionate neutral reading the Constitution is laughable. There is a reason for the aggressive forum shopping that is gone on here.
I agree that these decisions are frustratingly open-ended. But the failure here is not that of the court. It is Congressional, it is now three decades old, and it is not getting any better.
Oh please—it’s all about the court dodging its responsibility to render justice. Congress is a well-known center of boiling indecision; SCOTUS has become a Trump rubber stamp; and the executive branch, as noted by one judge, as a promoter of racist policy.
This is it for me. If you think that "rendering justice" Is as simple as ABC when even defining justice is enormously controversial, I think you have missed the whole point of the separation of powers in the Constitution. The Supreme Court no more has a monopoly on justice than does the president or Congress (e.g. Dred Scott). Even less so do ordinary district Court judges. But Congress at least is supposed to be representative, which gives it the moral advantage over the other two branches and makes it the theoretical engine of the government. Its abdication of that responsibility is a matter of real constitutional concern.
The fact that Congress has abdicated their responsibility is due to the fact that the Republican party is now the party of fascists. Since they are in the majority they will not go against trump. Which is why the courts are so important. I suggest you educate yourself further regarding the damage the current scotus is inflicting on this country. Funny thing but "defining justice," shouldn't be controversial. You're completely missing the point of just how horrendous this scotus is. They are bought and paid for judiciary hacks in black robes making their fealty to their Dear Leader crystal clear. No matter if they are upending Constitutional rights that are clearly stated in that document. This scotus decides how they will rule, and then proceeds to twist the laws of this country to suit their intended result. Or make up entirely new legal justifications for their extremist rulings. They did this when they overturned Roe. Tortured logic particularly from Alito which made zero sense, and he's doing it again with this current ruling, along with Amy, etc. They're not even trying to hide their blatant bigotry.
Read Steven Beschloss: "This Supreme Court can see Trump’s reckless flouting of the law…and still they’re determined to increase his power. They are a real danger to the survival of our democratic society."
Yawn. And the Democrats are the Party of communist. You do not know this but you are the enemy. When you decided that half a nation, approximately, has deserted to the devil, you defeated all hope of governing by compromise, which is the way this nation has always worked.
I emphatically agree with that last statement. As to the separation of powers, this is theory disputed by actuality: The powers these days are united under one intemperate “ruler” … SCOTUS does not dispense justice, Congress is more interested in a non-existent “Biden crime family” and the horrific threat of trans kids than concocting any laws beyond tax-relief awards to the elite; and the president is seeking revenge against critics and, well, everyone. Meanwhile, civility and conscience are trumped by delusion and incoherence.
Can we please stop referring to the six political operative justices in the majority as “conservatives”? They are not conservatives; they are right wing extremists. If any members of the Supreme Court are conservative, it is the three justices considered to be “liberal” who are actually trying to conserve the justice system and the Constitution.
This is a straightforward, direct continuation of conservative political beliefs that have animated America's more-conservative party for the past few decades. We don't need to give cover to the weirdos who were happy with A & B but are now acting horrified at C.
Say a child born in the US is deported with its parents as a "non citizen", but then the EO is ruled unconstitutional. Now the child is presumably a citizen. Can it get a US passport? The current process for US citizen kids born abroad involves needing to prove the citizenship of the parents, clearly not applicable in this case. Are we creating a bunch of distinctly 2nd class US Citizens?
J Barrett, returning to the good graces of her reactionary brethren, after a couple of early "swing-y" departures from the usual 6-3 split...welcome back, Amy! If I understood the decision properly, not only does the "thirty-day period" allow district courts to sort out next steps, but the Court also directs tRump/Miller/DOJ to prepare rules and regs for implementing this EO "amendment" to the Constitution's 14th A guarantee of birthright citizenship.
Thirty days for the lower courts to hear modified filings, to sort out Rule 23 certification of class-action suits based upon potential loss of citizenship for certain new-born nation-wide, to attend to other roadblocks thrown up by the opinion. How can the majority ignore the enormous consequences of THIS particular decision, which purports to ONLY limit district court injunctions to the parties and districts in which a case is filed, yet chooses as a vehicle a case that by its very nature has nation-wide implications?
Hands thrown up in the air, with much head-shaking as well.
Excellent analysis. Barrett just adds more steps to adjudication … which (tacitly) allows the DoJ to ignore more steps. Next up, the “paper bag test” for litigants.
Universal injunctions lack “a historical pedigree” … you know what DOES have such a pedigree? Slavery.
Very perplexing: SCOTUS rules on rules, not constitutionality or merits, and sends cases back to the lower courts … whose findings it ignores. Trump trumps, and justice is not just blinded but maimed.
I don't think the issue is ripe for adjudication on the merits. It has not been properly litigated in the lower courts and intermediate appellate courts.
What merits? Birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the Constitution; denying it is, by definition, unconstitutional.
That is not so. The arguments against birthright citizenship are not very good, but they do exist. Read the executive order.
Any argument in favor of removing a constitutional right cannot win over the Constitution's declaration of such right
You probably thought this was profound, but it is actually a meaningless taology. The argument is whether the Constitution does declare such a right.
It does. More than à century ago that was reiterated in United States v. Wong Kim Ark - it’s pretty blatant.
Years? Our democracy doesn’t have years.
The Rogue justices have clearly declared that they are not on the side of the Constitution.
This is classic Roberts Court: decide the case on a narrow technicality and thereby “facilitate” (Abrego Garcia) the terrible real world impact.
Finally, this recent shameful decision practically codifies Trump’s delay-delay-delay tactics … and gives silent approval to his unconstitutionality.
There’s also a statutory hurdle for the government to overcome.
The ACLU and allies should develop sample papers to file in every district.
On the plus side, this defangs Kaczmarek.
But probably puts ole Kasc on the federal appeals court shortlist.
And Reed O'Connor.
I'm still trying to figure out what remedies may still be available after CASA. Can lower courts still enter injunctions applicable within the boundaries of their districts or circuits? Or can relief only go to named or class plaintiffs?
Screw Barrett. Screw Kavanaugh. Screw the rest of the small-minded, petty, useless SCOTUS cons.
Let's talk about Sotomayor and Jackson, both of whom must be exhausted this week, writing forcefully about the harms this SCOTUS will inflict on the country. Doing so fearlessly, and without pretense to some form of faux civility.
We already know SCOTUS cons have tossed aside any pretense of following the law, or even attempting to follow the law, but it's important to have dissents that plainly call out their bad actions.
Because all of the SCOTUS con actions will be reversed someday, and the seed for their reversals are in the dissents.
You think that situation is improved by allowing individual district judges to issue ultimate remedies? By the way, the injunctions and issue here aren't even final.
They were preliminary.
The issues cry out for statutory codification or even Constitutional mendment. The notion that individuals appointed to a district court acquire immediate ultimate wisdom Is absurd. (I know judges who I wouldn't trust to pick up my laundry efficiently.) There is also the practical reality that the only real authority a court has is its moral standing, which is being more and more undercut.
I repeat, the real issue. Here is Congressional failure. Running from the threat of executive supremacy to embrace judicial supremacy is literally Chicken Littles running into the cave to escape the falling sky.
I’m trying to understand the ramifications if most of the country no longer has birthright citizenship, if temporarily. People lose their rights under the law? Can’t vote, get health benefits, passport, work This effects millions of people. Is this correct?
It only applies to babies born after February 2025, not retroactively, is my understanding
I still retain hope that Justice Barrett will continue her slow tack to the center and be a moderating influence.
Obviously, not happening. Her response to Jackson's dissent speaks volumes. Amy knows who her owners are, and she does not care about the American people or the rule of law.
I’m with you there—I have hopes she will get beyond the rightist cant.
The notion that an opinion such as this undercuts "the rule of law" Is one of the most cynical that has been articulated. It presupposes the lowly district Court judges are free from bias, prejudice and their own particular value judgments in interpreting law and the Constitution. Constitution. Every practical lawyer knows that is not so. The practice of issuing universal injunctions had to stop. It should be regulated by Congress, but in this day and age that's not going to happen. The Court did its best.
Are not the Appellate Courts in place to address whatever "bias, prejudice and [the lower districts'] particular judgments in interpreting law and the Constitution"? And what about the States? What is the remedy when the government takes illegal and/or unconstitutional action against a group of States. Can States file a class action suit or must every State file a separate claim in District Court and obtain an appealable injunction in each case until such time that one of the cases reaches the Supreme Court? That is untenable given that certain appellate courts support an administration that issues unconstitutional orders (talk about ""bias, prejudice and particular [peculiar] judgments" , leaving the citizens of that appellate court district subject to unconstitutional acts until the Supreme Court decides whether to accept or deny an emergency application and temporarily stop the injustice?
A not-so brave new world where all is put on hold until daddy finishes the back nine.
But did its best to obfuscate … and allow the king his ransom.
Like Presidential immunity, this is a subject too large to be decided by decisional authority. The scope of the available remedies to an ordinary district Court is something that should be defined statutorily. The notion that a particular district Court will give a clear dispassionate neutral reading the Constitution is laughable. There is a reason for the aggressive forum shopping that is gone on here.
I agree that these decisions are frustratingly open-ended. But the failure here is not that of the court. It is Congressional, it is now three decades old, and it is not getting any better.
Oh please—it’s all about the court dodging its responsibility to render justice. Congress is a well-known center of boiling indecision; SCOTUS has become a Trump rubber stamp; and the executive branch, as noted by one judge, as a promoter of racist policy.
This is it for me. If you think that "rendering justice" Is as simple as ABC when even defining justice is enormously controversial, I think you have missed the whole point of the separation of powers in the Constitution. The Supreme Court no more has a monopoly on justice than does the president or Congress (e.g. Dred Scott). Even less so do ordinary district Court judges. But Congress at least is supposed to be representative, which gives it the moral advantage over the other two branches and makes it the theoretical engine of the government. Its abdication of that responsibility is a matter of real constitutional concern.
The fact that Congress has abdicated their responsibility is due to the fact that the Republican party is now the party of fascists. Since they are in the majority they will not go against trump. Which is why the courts are so important. I suggest you educate yourself further regarding the damage the current scotus is inflicting on this country. Funny thing but "defining justice," shouldn't be controversial. You're completely missing the point of just how horrendous this scotus is. They are bought and paid for judiciary hacks in black robes making their fealty to their Dear Leader crystal clear. No matter if they are upending Constitutional rights that are clearly stated in that document. This scotus decides how they will rule, and then proceeds to twist the laws of this country to suit their intended result. Or make up entirely new legal justifications for their extremist rulings. They did this when they overturned Roe. Tortured logic particularly from Alito which made zero sense, and he's doing it again with this current ruling, along with Amy, etc. They're not even trying to hide their blatant bigotry.
Read Steven Beschloss: "This Supreme Court can see Trump’s reckless flouting of the law…and still they’re determined to increase his power. They are a real danger to the survival of our democratic society."
Yawn. And the Democrats are the Party of communist. You do not know this but you are the enemy. When you decided that half a nation, approximately, has deserted to the devil, you defeated all hope of governing by compromise, which is the way this nation has always worked.
I emphatically agree with that last statement. As to the separation of powers, this is theory disputed by actuality: The powers these days are united under one intemperate “ruler” … SCOTUS does not dispense justice, Congress is more interested in a non-existent “Biden crime family” and the horrific threat of trans kids than concocting any laws beyond tax-relief awards to the elite; and the president is seeking revenge against critics and, well, everyone. Meanwhile, civility and conscience are trumped by delusion and incoherence.
So start beating up your congressman
Can we please stop referring to the six political operative justices in the majority as “conservatives”? They are not conservatives; they are right wing extremists. If any members of the Supreme Court are conservative, it is the three justices considered to be “liberal” who are actually trying to conserve the justice system and the Constitution.
This is a straightforward, direct continuation of conservative political beliefs that have animated America's more-conservative party for the past few decades. We don't need to give cover to the weirdos who were happy with A & B but are now acting horrified at C.
Say a child born in the US is deported with its parents as a "non citizen", but then the EO is ruled unconstitutional. Now the child is presumably a citizen. Can it get a US passport? The current process for US citizen kids born abroad involves needing to prove the citizenship of the parents, clearly not applicable in this case. Are we creating a bunch of distinctly 2nd class US Citizens?