SCOTUS Catch-all | 2024-25 Term Ends

[lawtig02]

Not exactly. I can maybe say more later, but I do not hate this opinion. Basically the court viewed the universal injunction as a workaround for class certification (which is sort of correct) and the unavailability of the universal injunction does not preclude a nationwide class.

This isn't a terrible ruling because it knocks out the true bullshit: the 5th Circuit assholes who enjoin the prescription of drugs because of bullshit complaints by a tiny fraction of doctors. No way to make that class certifiable. The birthright citizenship issue is eminently suitable for class certification.

I'd have to think about this more, but my first thoughts are that it's fine. It isn't the rule I would have adopted, but at the moment I don't see too many problems here. I am open to other thoughts, of course, and reserve the right to edit my own if I think about it more.

Good call, and it's good to see some judges taking an aggressive approach to this. We'll see if it holds up but I'm encouraged. And I apologize for questioning your prediction.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/10/politics/birthright-citizenship-hearing-rhode-island

A federal judge agreed Thursday to issue a new nationwide block against President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship.

The ruling from US District Judge Joseph Laplante is significant because the Supreme Court last month curbed the power of lower court judges to issue nationwide injunctions, while keeping intact the ability of plaintiffs to seek a widespread block of the order through class action lawsuits, which is what happened Thursday in New Hampshire.

 

[superrific]

Good call, and it's good to see some judges taking an aggressive approach to this. We'll see if it holds up but I'm encouraged. And I apologize for questioning your prediction.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/10/politics/birthright-citizenship-hearing-rhode-island

A federal judge agreed Thursday to issue a new nationwide block against President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship.

The ruling from US District Judge Joseph Laplante is significant because the Supreme Court last month curbed the power of lower court judges to issue nationwide injunctions, while keeping intact the ability of plaintiffs to seek a widespread block of the order through class action lawsuits, which is what happened Thursday in New Hampshire.

1. Why would you apologize for questioning predictions? They are predictions. If I was 100% sure they are correct I could be a very rich man. Put it this way: at a minimum, it's valuable to other posters to see that there's some disagreement between our law folks and thus don't take super's word to the bank. Well, I had a deposit withdrawn today from a company running short on cash, so maybe my word is good enough for a bank in a recession, but that's beside the point.

2. If the Supreme Court fucks this up somehow, then we can add "saboteur" to the list of other labels they have earned. This should be as straightforward as it gets. Are they going to stay it? During oral arguments, several justices were concerned about the order taking effect. They wanted to know if the administration was going to get the case to them on the merits "expeditiously."

 

[ZenMode]

Does KBJ know that she's supposed to consider the Constitution, not consider her feelings?

 

[lawtig02]

Does KBJ know that she's supposed to consider the Constitution, not consider her feelings?

 

[ZenMode]

When you have a court this divided, and the decision is eight to one.... You have to question the decision making of the one.

Interpretations of the Constitution vary, but this is just a weird dissent:

“For some reason, this court sees fit to step in now and release the president’s wrecking ball at the outset of this litigation,” Jackson wrote. “In my view, this decision is not only truly unfortunate but also hubristic and senseless.”

 

[Kraftyheel89]

Trump just lost his appeal in Federal Court for a NY jury finding Trump guilty of sexual assault and defamation in the E.J. Carroll $5 Million settlement. What are the chances of the SCOTIS taking this case for their Prez?

In the past, they have kept Trump out of trouble by using delay tactics, sending cases back to lower courts to address minutia such as "what is an official act of the office versus non official acts." Thus, they've given Trump what he wants and requests without actually going on record as stating Trump's actions were lawful.

If they take on this case, they can't do that. A jury has decided, and a Federal Court declined the appeal. If Trump asks the Supreme Court to weigh in, I see only two options. They either decide not to take the case (correct decision), or they completely ignore law and give Trump what he wants, reversing the decision. NO loopholes here, they would be on record 100% for ignoring laws and changing the duties of the SCOTUS.

There is a third option of course. They could take on the case and DENY Trump's appeal tio SCOTUS, the only possible legal correct decision and should be 9-0. I don't EVER see them doing that. But yet, they continue to ignore the law for Trump, so who knows.

 

[McAdooSmackinYou]

Does KBJ know that she's supposed to consider the Constitution, not consider her feelings?

 

[Calheel]

Trump just lost his appeal in Federal Court for a NY jury finding Trump guilty of sexual assault and defamation in the E.J. Carroll $5 Million settlement. What are the chances of the SCOTIS taking this case for their Prez?

In the past, they have kept Trump out of trouble by using delay tactics, sending cases back to lower courts to address minutia such as "what is an official act of the office versus non official acts." Thus, they've given Trump what he wants and requests without actually going on record as stating Trump's actions were lawful.

If they take on this case, they can't do that. A jury has decided, and a Federal Court declined the appeal. If Trump asks the Supreme Court to weigh in, I see only two options. They either decide not to take the case (correct decision), or they completely ignore law and give Trump what he wants, reversing the decision. NO loopholes here, they would be on record 100% for ignoring laws and changing the duties of the SCOTUS.

There is a third option of course. They could take on the case and DENY Trump's appeal tio SCOTUS, the only possible legal correct decision and should be 9-0. I don't EVER see them doing that. But yet, they continue to ignore the law for Trump, so who knows.

0.0%. Those are the chances.

 

[superrific]

When you have a court this divided, and the decision is eight to one.... You have to question the decision making of the one.

Interpretations of the Constitution vary, but this is just a weird dissent:

“For some reason, this court sees fit to step in now and release the president’s wrecking ball at the outset of this litigation,” Jackson wrote. “In my view, this decision is not only truly unfortunate but also hubristic and senseless.”

STFU you racist pinhead. You actually don't know what the vote was. All you know is that EK and ACB didn't join KBJ's dissent. That means nothing in this context, except maybe they don't have as much energy.

Just FYI, the unitary executive theory that your boys love so much was articulated in . . . wait for it . . . wait for it . . . a solo dissent by Scalia.

 

[ZenMode]

STFU you racist pinhead.

You actually don't know what the vote was.

As I said, 8 to 1.

All you know is that EK and ACB didn't join KBJ's dissent. That means nothing in this context, except maybe they don't have as much energy.

Just FYI, the unitary executive theory that your boys love so much was articulated in . . . wait for it . . . wait for it . . . a solo dissent by Scalia.

None of that has anything to do with the fact that she's incorporating her feelings about Trump into her decision, when she should be talking about constitutional interpretations, past decisions, etc to ultimately determine if Trump's executive order was lawful. Her opinion of his actions are irrelevant... Or they should be irrelevant, just as the amount of melanin in her skin is irrelevant.

 

[lawtig02]

As I said, 8 to 1.

None of that has anything to do with the fact that she's incorporating her feelings about Trump into her decision, when she should be talking about constitutional interpretations, past decisions, etc to ultimately determine if Trump's executive order was lawful. Her opinion of his actions are irrelevant... Or they should be irrelevant, just as the amount of melanin in her skin is irrelevant.

Serious question -- did you actually read Jackson's dissent? Because she starts with the constitutional implications of Trump's actions and the majority's decision in her very first paragraph --

JUSTICE JACKSON, dissenting from the grant of application for stay.

Under our Constitution, Congress has the power to establish administrative agencies and detail their functions. Thus, over the past century, Presidents who have attempted to reorganize the Federal Government have first obtained authorization from Congress to do so. The President sharply departed from that settled practice on February 11, 2025, however, by allegedly arrogating this powerto himself. With no mention of congressional buy-in, the President’s Executive Order No. 14210 mandates a “critical transformation” of the Federal Government, to be accomplished by “eliminat[ing] or consolidat[ing]” existing agencies and ordering agency heads to “promptly undertake preparations to initiate large-scale reductions in force.” 90 Fed. Reg. 9669, 9670.

 

[ZenMode]

Serious question -- did you actually read Jackson's dissent? Because she starts with the constitutional implications of Trump's actions and the majority's decision in her very first paragraph --

JUSTICE JACKSON, dissenting from the grant of application for stay.

Under our Constitution, Congress has the power to establish administrative agencies and detail their functions. Thus, over the past century, Presidents who have attempted to reorganize the Federal Government have first obtained authorization from Congress to do so. The President sharply departed from that settled practice on February 11, 2025, however, by allegedly arrogating this powerto himself. With no mention of congressional buy-in, the President’s Executive Order No. 14210 mandates a “critical transformation” of the Federal Government, to be accomplished by “eliminat[ing] or consolidat[ing]” existing agencies and ordering agency heads to “promptly undertake preparations to initiate large-scale reductions in force.” 90 Fed. Reg. 9669, 9670.

Yes, I read it. I was also "confused" with other things she wrote, including what you posted.

 

[lawtig02]

Yes, I read it. I was also "confused" with other things she wrote, including what you posted.

Ok. Just so you know, nothing in that paragraph is even remotely confusing to people who understand the basics of constitutional law.

 

[finesse]

Ok. Just so you know, nothing in that paragraph is even remotely confusing to people who understand the basics of constitutional law.

Then you see his problem.

 

[ZenMode]

Ok. Just so you know, nothing in that paragraph is even remotely confusing to people who understand the basics of constitutional law.

Well, there's a reason I put "confusing" in quotes and it's not because I was actually confused. She seems to believe that Congress having the Constitutional power to do X somehow equals the President not having the Constitutional power to do X or Y.

She had an agenda, which is made clear in the excerpt I originally posted. She has emotions about Trump and what he is doing and her dissent is trying to justify those emotions.

She started with the conclusion she wanted and worked backwards from there, IMO.

 

[lawtig02]

Well, there's a reason I put "confusing" in quotes and it's not because I was actually confused. She seems to believe that Congress having the Constitutional power to do X somehow equals the President not having the Constitutional power to do X or Y.

She had an agenda, which is made clear in the excerpt I originally posted. She has emotions about Trump and what he is doing and her dissent is trying to justify those emotions.

She started with the conclusion she wanted and worked backwards from there, IMO.

Oh, NOW I see the issue. You're confusing her commentary on constitutional separation of powers issues (i.e., whether the president has the constitutional power to slash federal agencies established and funded by Congress without congressional approval) with her commentary on the Supreme Court's internal practices (whether it's appropriate for SCOTUS to stay a district court order based on an undeveloped factual record).

That confusion is a little more understandable for a nonlawyer, but as before, the issue here is not with KBJ. It's with you.

 

[Huh?]

Well, there's a reason I put "confusing" in quotes and it's not because I was actually confused. She seems to believe that Congress having the Constitutional power to do X somehow equals the President not having the Constitutional power to do X or Y.

She had an agenda, which is made clear in the excerpt I originally posted. She has emotions about Trump and what he is doing and her dissent is trying to justify those emotions.

She started with the conclusion she wanted and worked backwards from there, IMO.

What you really meant to put in quotes is "silly hysterical woman". You know, the one who is way more educated and accomplished than any of us.

 

[donbosco]

“The National Constitution Center and the Center on the Structural Constitution at Texas A&M University School of Law present a U.S. Supreme Court review symposium featuring leading constitutional law scholars and commentators analyzing the Court’s most significant rulings of the term. Participants include Jonathan Adler, Jess Bravin, Jan Crawford, Daniel Epps, Sarah Isgur, Frederick Lawrence, Fred Smith Jr., Stephen Vladeck, Daniel Walters, and Keith Whittington. In addition to discussing recent decisions, panelists will explore the role of the media, the president, and other political actors in shaping public perceptions of the Court. Moderators and special guest speakers include Robert Ahdieh and Katherine Mims Crocker of Texas A&M University School of Law, Neil Siegel of Duke Law School, and Jeffrey Rosen of the National Constitution Center.

This program is presented in partnership with the Center on the Structural Constitution at Texas A&M University School of Law.”
2025 Supreme Court Review: Key Rulings, Public Perceptions, and Constitutional Debates - Town Hall Video | Constitution Center


RECORDING AT THE LINK ABOVE.

 

[BlooVooDoo]

Ok. Just so you know, nothing in that paragraph is even remotely confusing to people who understand the basics of constitutional law.

Or English.

 

[ZenMode]

Oh, NOW I see the issue. You're confusing her commentary on constitutional separation of powers issues (i.e., whether the president has the constitutional power to slash federal agencies established and funded by Congress without congressional approval) with her commentary on the Supreme Court's internal practices (whether it's appropriate for SCOTUS to stay a district court order based on an undeveloped factual record).

That confusion is a little more understandable for a nonlawyer, but as before, the issue here is not with KBJ. It's with you.

And apparently 8 other Supreme Court Justices....