Trump Admin SCOTUS cases | SCOTUS 8-1 permits rescinding protection for Venezuelans

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 98
  • Views: 2K
  • Politics 
mpaer said:
If it goes as you think-is the underlying question about injunctions? Or do you just think they will say the Exec Order is "not allowable " but not rule on the issue of a given Court's power to put injunctions on such things?
Or maybe I am completely off??? lol
Click to expand...
1. Yes, they will say that the 14th Am provides that people born here are citizens full stop (save the narrowest exception for diplomats). Thus, they will uphold the injunction because they have stated the rule of law -- in effect, entering its own injunction.

2. The "universal injunction" issue only pertains to district (and to a lesser extent, appeals courts) courts, because the danger is that one rogue district court will start acting like a God King and enjoining every policy under the sun. The Supreme Court can issue universal injunctions. The government sorta kinda argued that the Court doesn't have that power but they didn't spend long on that nonsense.

It's this latter #2 that I think won't be addressed in this case by the majority opinion. They will enter their own injunction (or uphold the district court's, which amounts to the same thing).

3. I should note that some of the conservative justices are wise to Trump's tricks and bad faith. ACB in particular does not appear to be giving the government any presumption of regularity. They kept asking the SG whether he would respect court opinions and he kept demurring and that really made them unhappy.
 
superrific said:
1. Yes, they will say that the 14th Am provides that people born here are citizens full stop (save the narrowest exception for diplomats). Thus, they will uphold the injunction because they have stated the rule of law -- in effect, entering its own injunction.

2. The "universal injunction" issue only pertains to district (and to a lesser extent, appeals courts) courts, because the danger is that one rogue district court will start acting like a God King and enjoining every policy under the sun. The Supreme Court can issue universal injunctions. The government sorta kinda argued that the Court doesn't have that power but they didn't spend long on that nonsense.

It's this latter #2 that I think won't be addressed in this case by the majority opinion. They will enter their own injunction (or uphold the district court's, which amounts to the same thing).

3. I should note that some of the conservative justices are wise to Trump's tricks and bad faith. ACB in particular does not appear to be giving the government any presumption of regularity. They kept asking the SG whether he would respect court opinions and he kept demurring and that really made them unhappy.
Click to expand...
Thanks
 
I did not expect an opinion from this. This is largely a preview of the same issues that will come up in the birthright case. I guess we know for sure that Alito and Thomas are going to vote for Trump. The fact that everyone else joined, and Kav seemed in fact eager to decide the legal issues as soon as possible, suggests that they will vote that way on the birthright case.

It's interesting that on Wednesday they were talking about whether a class action could be used instead of a universal injunction. Then it was argued, well it's sometimes difficult to certify a class, to which the response was "an injunction can issue to a putative class." Which is exactly what the Court did today. Now this case had already been put in a class action posture by the plaintiffs; but the distinction between an injunction to a putative class and a universal injunction is gossamer at best. And they might also have tipped their hand with their jurisdictional argument: that the district court's refusal to issue an injunction was tantamount to an appealable order, which of course can't happen if the district court didn't possess the power.

Alito and Thomas are just so horrible. They have this thing they do when they are about to give prisoners or defendants the shaft. Recognizing the manifest unfairness of, say, allowing a man to be put to death because his court-appointed attorney fucked up the paperwork, they always find SOMEONE ELSE in the case who they think was treated unfairly and then empathize with them. Thus does Thomas worry about the unfairness of criticisms of prosecutors who make Brady mistakes in capital cases; Alito worries that the Obergefell decision is unfair to people who want to think bad things about gay marriage but now can't because they all look to the Supreme Court for moral guidance. Etc. etc. And here again: Alito unloads on the majority for their purported unfairness to the judge, even as he would greenlight the deportation of alleged enemy aliens before they have had any due process because the lawyer allegedly didn't give the district court enough time before appealing. It is so pathetic and revealing. It shows they know what they are doing is wrong.
 
IMG_6972.jpeg
IMG_6973.jpeg


For those in the back, this characterization of the ruling is complete nonsense. .
 
nycfan said:
Click to expand...

Call me cruel but I can't get too worked up about this. Biden should never have granted Venezuelans these protections, it was a mistake. Sucks for them now if they have to go back but they shouldn't have ever been allowed in in the first place.
 
Geisterfahrer said:
Call me cruel but I can't get too worked up about this. Biden should never have granted Venezuelans these protections, it was a mistake. Sucks for them now if they have to go back but they shouldn't have ever been allowed in in the first place.
Click to expand...
Agree, as long as the next Dem president sends back the South Africans who are among the last people in the world to deserve asylum.
 
Geisterfahrer said:
Call me cruel but I can't get too worked up about this. Biden should never have granted Venezuelans these protections, it was a mistake. Sucks for them now if they have to go back but they shouldn't have ever been allowed in in the first place.
Click to expand...
To be fair, Trump granted them protection on the last day of his presidency in 2021.

And it’s ironic that he’s removing these protections now, only 8 days after the WH released a travel advisory citing the following:

“Do not travel to or remain in Venezuela due to the high risk of wrongful detention, torture in detention, terrorism, kidnapping, arbitrary enforcement of local laws, crime, civil unrest, and poor health infrastructure.”

Seems like the Trump admin thinks Venezuela isn’t a safe country, which is precisely why Venezuelans would qualify for continued TPS if Trump played by the rules.
 
Last edited:
Geisterfahrer said:
Call me cruel but I can't get too worked up about this. Biden should never have granted Venezuelans these protections, it was a mistake. Sucks for them now if they have to go back but they shouldn't have ever been allowed in in the first place.
Click to expand...
I’m inclined to disagree. The potential harm to those subject to deportation to Venezuela seems both greater and irreparable compared to whatever harm the administration faces by having to wait until the legal challenges are concluded.
 
Geisterfahrer said:
Call me cruel but I can't get too worked up about this. Biden should never have granted Venezuelans these protections, it was a mistake. Sucks for them now if they have to go back but they shouldn't have ever been allowed in in the first place.
Click to expand...
Wait, wut? I must have missed something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top