Trump Admin SCOTUS cases | SCOTUS blocks AEA deportations

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 49
  • Views: 1K
  • Politics 

In Trump Cases, Supreme Court Retreats From Confrontation​

In a series of narrow and technical rulings, the justices have seemed to take pains to avoid a showdown with a president who has challenged the judiciary’s legitimacy.

GIFT LINK 🎁 —> In Trump Cases, Supreme Court Retreats From Confrontation
“…
But as the first wave of challenges to President Trump’s blitz of executive orders has reached the justices, a very different portrait of the court is emerging. It has issued a series of narrow and legalistic rulings that seem calculated to avoid the larger issues presented by a president rapidly working to expand power and reshape government.

On Monday, the court ruled that Venezuelan migrants who challenged the administration’s plans to send them to a notorious prison in El Salvador had filed their lawsuits in the wrong court, without ruling on the underlying legal issues.

…. Challenges to initiatives from the second Trump administration have yielded five emergency rulings so far.

… In any event, the five orders said very little.

One ruled that a challenge to a trial judge’s order barring the firing of a government watchdog should be “held in abeyance.” Another instructed a judge who had told the administration to restoreforeign aid to “clarify what obligations the government must fulfill.”

A third, allowing the administration to temporarily freeze teacher-training grants, relied on a mélange of laws and doctrines — the Administrative Procedure Act, sovereign immunity, the Tucker Act — to conclude that the challengers had most likely sued in the wrong court.

These were, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in dissent, “ancillary threshold and remedial questions” that ducked the real one: Were the administration’s actions lawful? …”
 
Can't wait to see what bullshit Alito comes up with to justify his vote.

Actually, never mind. I can definitely wait.
 
I think the Trump admin is basically hoisted by its own petard here. By claiming that they have no power to bring people back from El Salvador - and refusing to do anything to bring people back even when ordered by courts - they can’t well complain that the courts have to act quickly to block potential constitutional violations before they happen.

The overreaching by the Trump hardliners is really hurting them here. If they had just brought back one guy after the court ordered them to- and if Trump would just say they won’t do this to civilians - they would have had a much better chance of the court allowing them to continue deportations (at least for now). And I suspect that the admin moving the prisoners to a different location to get around an existing injunction really ticked many of the Supreme Court justices off.
 
The overreaching by the Trump hardliners is really hurting them here. If they had just brought back one guy after the court ordered them to- and if Trump would just say they won’t do this to civilians - they would have had a much better chance of the court allowing them to continue deportations (at least for now). And I suspect that the admin moving the prisoners to a different location to get around an existing injunction really ticked many of the Supreme Court justices off.
Unless the point is a) get a maximalist victory or b) lose sufficiently often to claim the court system is biased and therefore doesn't have to be obeyed.
 
Unless the point is a) get a maximalist victory or b) lose sufficiently often to claim the court system is biased and therefore doesn't have to be obeyed.
True. Good luck to them selling the public on the idea that the Supreme Court with four Trump appointees is biased against him. Not that they won’t try.
 
“…One ruled that a challenge to a trial judge’s order barring the firing of a government watchdog should be “held in abeyance.” Another instructed a judge who had told the administration to restoreforeign aid to “clarify what obligations the government must fulfill.”

A third, allowing the administration to temporarily freeze teacher-training grants, relied on a mélange of laws and doctrines — the Administrative Procedure Act, sovereign immunity, the Tucker Act — to conclude that the challengers had most likely sued in the wrong court.

These were, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in dissent, “ancillary threshold and remedial questions” that ducked the real one: Were the administration’s actions lawful? …”
In fairness, these were all emergency docket cases and in some of these cases, the procedural issues were the only questions before the court. In other words, the government was looking for stays.

I doubt Jackson would have dissented if it was 2023. The court often decides ancillary threshold questions, both ways. The difference is that Jackson knows is taking the approach of "we should be assessing these cases all together even if we don't say so." Because she gets it, she knows that all of these cases are really about the same thing. I would do the same thing. But it doesn't play all that well with precedent because . . . well, as with so many issues, the Court has never been called on to decide so much obviously illegal bullshit in such a short time.
 
Back
Top