Law No more nationwide injunctions from district judges

[Rod1]

Bro you're as dense as a rock.

Just watch the video. I'm assuming you trust a journalist like Glenn Greenwald. But there are others that break it down on Youtube too.

I understand the decision, just telling you its a gross violation of rights.

 

[heloder]

Its insane how many people were just ok with fascism, they were just missing the key component which is to have a fuhrer to deposit all the power into.

The concept of "in the case of doubt, favor the citizen" seems to be an alien concept to them, it would be like giving prosecutors the ability to put you in jail without the need of a court and when you point them out that its a gross violation of freedoms they go all "Well if the prosecutor puts you in jail, you can always plead to a judge".

Its the upside down world, instead of government having to prove why they need a certain power it falls to the citizen to prove why government doesn't needs that power.

That's spot-on. These are the same people who, a few years ago, were calling Joe Biden a "tyrant".

 

[heloder]

WTF are you talking about.

Hey, let's do a recap, shall we?

I started off by saying the following:

- If courts can institute a nationwide injunction, these people are protected until the legality can be settled.

- If courts can't institute a nationwide injunction, Trump can do said illegal thing to any of those people who aren't actively part of a lawsuit against the US government for this issue.

These statements are factually accurate.

Then you came in and quoted the above post and stated:

That's actually not what was just decided. What the decision says is that if a lower court issues a ruling for that group of people (who brought that lawsuit), it only applies to THAT group of people and not nationwide.

As you can see, the problem begins right away with you not understanding what the fuck you're responding to. Because my statement was in response to another poster, in which I was illustrating the differences between how the injunctions worked prior to the SCOTUS decision, and how they work after the SCOTUS decision.

Furthermore, your statement was literally just a repeat of what the second part of my statement said.

Then you proceed to harp on about what would happen if one district court issued a nationwide injunction, and then another issued a nationwide injunction "the complete opposite way".

So what if a district court in Atlanta rules one way and issues a nationwide injunction and at the same time another district court in Portland issues a nationwide injunction ruling the complete opposite way? Who takes precedence?

Let's pause here for a moment and acknowledge the fact that you are arguing about nationwide injunctions here (and in several other posts). It's important to remember this for later.

So anyway, your post makes no sense, because there's no such thing as a court "issuing a nationwide injunction the complete opposite way". Regardless, I informed you that the nationwide injunction halting the executive order takes precedence. You will spend the next few posts bewildered by this statement.

You then post the following, trying to illustrate your whole "what if another court issues a nationwide injunction the complete opposite way":

A plaintiff brings a court case to get an injunction but the judge rules against the plaintiff and says no. That's the ruling.

I then tell you that this is not called an injunction, and that the actual injunction by the other court takes precedence, at which point you edit your post to something completely different:

A local court essentially cannot give a NATIONWIDE injunction.

They can only rule for their case and plaintiffs only. That's what this Supreme Court case just decided.

Knowing you don't have a leg to stand on, you decide to pivot towards acting like you've always been talking about how nationwide injunctions are no longer allowed, and are just confused as to why I don't get that, even though the first fucking post you responded to of mine was literally me discussing said ruling.

And now let's pause again so we can acknowledge the pivot from discussing the pros and cons of nationwide injunctions, to attempting to edit your post to make it seem like you've always been talking about how nationwide injunctions aren't allowed anymore.

If two local district courts in two different cities have opposite rulings why should one city's court have precedence?

Example:

5 trans students in New York City sue in federal court saying taking away transition drugs for minors is unconstitutional.

8 trans students in Dallas Texas also sue in their federal court to get transition drugs for minors.

New York rules in favor of the students allowing drugs. Dallas Texas says no drugs for minors.

New York would be completely out of bounds making a nationwide ruling affecting the whole country overruling the Dallas court.

This is false equivalency. The New York and Texas courts' decisions do not affect anybody outside of their respective jurisdictions. Trump's EOs affect the entire country, ergo an injunction is necessarily nationwide.

 

[Hog-train]

As you can see, the problem begins right away with you not understanding what the fuck you're responding to. Because my statement was in response to another poster, in which I was illustrating the differences between how the injunctions worked prior to the SCOTUS decision, and how they work after the SCOTUS decision.

I'm also talking about how things work prior to and after the SCOTUS decision.

Pre-SCOTUS decision: allowing local district courts deciding things legally for the entire nation can run into contradictions because other local courts can decide the complete opposite.

Then you proceed to harp on about what would happen if one district court issued a nationwide injunction, and then another issued a nationwide injunction "the complete opposite way".



Let's pause here for a moment and acknowledge the fact that you are arguing about nationwide injunctions here (and in several other posts). It's important to remember this for later.

So anyway, your post makes no sense, because there's no such thing as a court "issuing a nationwide injunction the complete opposite way". Regardless, I informed you that the nationwide injunction halting the executive order takes precedence. You will spend the next few posts bewildered by this statement.

You then post the following, trying to illustrate your whole "what if another court issues a nationwide injunction the complete opposite way":



I then tell you that this is not called an injunction, and that the actual injunction by the other court takes precedence, at which point you edit your post to something completely different:



Knowing you don't have a leg to stand on, you decide to pivot towards acting like you've always been talking about how nationwide injunctions are no longer allowed, and are just confused as to why I don't get that, even though the first fucking post you responded to of mine was literally me discussing said ruling.

You're completely misreading what I'm saying. Your whole logic hinges on injunctions only being used to stop an action.

Injunctions aren't just orders that STOP an action. They can also be orders TO DO an action.

Injunction - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"An injunction is an equitable remedy in the form of a special court order compelling a party to do or refrain from doing certain acts."

Local courts cannot or maybe I should say should not be able to give nationwide injunctions because it could contradict what OTHER local courts in another city does.

And not all injunctions are temporary. Plenty are permanent injunctions so that would in effect be a binding ruling unless overturned by a higher court.

This is false equivalency. The New York and Texas courts' decisions do not affect anybody outside of their respective jurisdictions. Trump's EOs affect the entire country, ergo an injunction is necessarily nationwide.

That's not a false equivalency at all.

If a New York court gave a NATIONAL injunction saying all hospitals must offer all trans kids hormones nationally.

But a Dallas Court had a similar case where they gave an injunction for hospitals to STOP giving transition drugs.

Those are two completely opposite injunctions and contradict. Because the New York Court is giving a national injunction.

That's my point. NYC is making a legal decision for the entire country nationwide.

 

[heloder]

I'm saying allowing local district courts deciding things legally for the entire nation can run into contradictions because other local courts can decide the complete opposite.

Yeah, I know you're saying this. That's why I have repeatedly told you that this is not an issue, because:

THE INJUNCTION WHICH PUTS A HOLD ON THE EXECUTIVE ORDER TAKES PRECEDENCE.

Stop trying to act like this is a thing. It's not a thing. It has never been a thing. It will never be a thing.

You're completely misreading what I'm saying. Your whole logic hinges on injunctions only being used to stop an action.

But injunctions aren't just orders that STOP an action. They can also be orders TO DO an action.

Local courts cannot or maybe I should say should not be able to give nationwide injunctions because it could contradict what OTHER local courts in another city does.

I wish to hell I was misreading what you are saying, but unfortunately I understand you completely. You think there are injunctions out there that allow executive orders to be upheld, when there aren't. Period.

Executive orders are upheld by default. It's not like Trump signs an executive order and they're nullified until a district court allows them. They're allowed by default. They are assumed legal, by default. The only way to stop them is by issuing an injunction, which, again, is nationwide by default, since the executive order's jurisdiction is nationwide, by default.

But again, even if there were injunctions upholding executive orders:

THE INJUNCTION WHICH PUTS A HOLD ON THE EXECUTIVE ORDER TAKES PRECEDENCE.

That's not a false equivalency at all. An injunction is a court order requiring a person to do or cease to do a specific action.

If a New York court gave a NATIONAL injunction saying all hospitals must offer all trans kids hormones nationally.

But a Dallas Court had a similar case where they gave an injunction for hospitals to STOP giving transition drugs.

Those are two completely opposite injunctions and contradict. Because the New York Court is giving a national injunction.

That's my point. NYC is making a legal decision for the entire country nationwide.

New York courts do not have jurisdiction to force all hospitals nationwide to do anything (before or after the SCOTUS ruling). You're full of shit here. You are completely confused by the difference between the bullshit that you just posted, and what a nationwide injunction against an executive order is.

Executive orders affect the entire country. That means that in order for a court to protect someone, the injunction must be nationwide by default, because the jurisdiction of the executive order is nationwide by default.

The SCOTUS ruling changes that, saying that the court can only file an injunction protecting the plaintiffs alone. This is a horrible ruling, for all the reasons I've stated, and will no doubt be stating again shortly so that you can properly absorb them.

 

[Hog-train]

Yeah, I know you're saying this. That's why I have repeatedly told you that this is not an issue, because:

THE INJUNCTION WHICH PUTS A HOLD ON THE EXECUTIVE ORDER TAKES PRECEDENCE.

Stop trying to act like this is a thing. It's not a thing. It has never been a thing. It will never be a thing.

Typing in all caps doesn't change the facts. Your whole logic is dependent on injunctions only stopping actions.

I wish to hell I was misreading what you are saying, but unfortunately I understand you completely. You think there are injunctions out there that allow executive orders to be upheld, when there aren't. Period.

Executive orders are upheld by default. It's not like Trump signs an executive order and they're nullified until a district court allows them. They're allowed by default. They are assumed legal, by default. The only way to stop them is by issuing an injunction, which, again, is nationwide by default, since the executive order's jurisdiction is nationwide, by default.

But again, even if there were injunctions upholding executive orders:

THE INJUNCTION WHICH PUTS A HOLD ON THE EXECUTIVE ORDER TAKES PRECEDENCE.

Not all injunctions deal with executive orders.

Sometimes injunctions just stop an action. Sometimes they compel an action.

Thus, that leaves open the possibility of two different courts doing OPPOSITE INJUNCTIONS.

That's my point and why nationwide injunctions generally cannot work.

New York courts do not have jurisdiction to force all hospitals nationwide to do anything (before or after the SCOTUS ruling). You're full of shit here. You are completely confused by the difference between the bullshit that you just posted, and what a nationwide injunction against an executive order is.

Let's take a different issue because this can be applied to anything.

In New York, 5 Chinese migrants are detained to be deported to Sudan. They fight it in court and a New York judge rules in their favor issuing a nationwide injunction saying that's unconstitutional - saying no migrants can be sent to a 3rd country.

In Dallas, 10 Chinese migrants are also detained for deportation to Sudan. They fight it in court but that judge issues an injunction that all Chinese illegals should be deported to a 3rd country because China is not accepting it's citizens back.

Under the old rules, both courts would have the ability to issue those injunctions.

And they directly contradict each other.

Executive orders affect the entire country. That means that in order for a court to protect someone, the injunction must be nationwide by default, because the jurisdiction of the executive order is nationwide by default.

But not all injunctions deal with executive orders. As the example above.

 

[BFoe]

But under your Obama DACA example, what if a Houston court ruled against the DACA EO and issued a nationwide injunction for the whole country?

That wouldn't be right either. Should DACA not go into effect nationally because a court in the city of Houston said no?

Additionally, what if another lowest level court in New York ruled the opposite way?

In the DACA example, the TX court did issue a nationwide injunction. And while I support DACA, that was probably the correct decision for that court because until DACA’s constitutionality was established, you risk potential harm or injury to the state of TX and others that can’t really be solved by anything less.

That said, I understand the frustration. We went through that when abortion opponents judge shopped the mifepristone case to that wackjob far right judge in TX (Matthew Kacsmaryk) who issued a nationwide injunction at the same time that another judge forced the FDA to continue distribution in 17 states. That jackwagon issued a lot of those types of injunctions and is a go-to for conservatives since he’s the only federal judge in that district.
But the conflict between those two judges’ decisions only lasted for a few days until an appeals court took up an emergency motion and made a ruling on that.

—So what of my hypothetical? Say some crazy POTUS issues an EO right before an election with new rules that greatly restrict their opposition? It’s clearly unconstitutional and probably violates a ton of laws about when to submit election rule changes, but what judge can stop it? What’s the remedy?

 

[heloder]

Not all injunctions deal with executive orders.

Sometimes injunctions just stop an action. Sometimes they compel an action.

Thus, that leaves open the possibility of two different courts doing OPPOSITE INJUNCTIONS.

That's my point and why nationwide injunctions generally cannot work.

Listen bud, I know you're barely treading water here and are looking for a way out, but saying stupid shit like this does not count as a rebuttal. Your magical OPPOSITE INJUNCTION which your entire argument hinges on is irrelevant, because:

THE INJUNCTION WHICH PUTS A HOLD ON THE EXECUTIVE ORDER TAKES PRECEDENCE.

Let's take a different issue because this can be applied to anything.

In New York, 5 Chinese migrants are detained to be deported to Sudan. They fight it in court and a New York judge rules in their favor issuing a nationwide injunction saying that's unconstitutional - saying no migrants can be sent to a 3rd country.

In Dallas, 10 Chinese migrants are also detained for deportation to Sudan. They fight it in court but that judge issues an injunction that all Chinese illegals should be deported to a 3rd country because China is not accepting it's citizens back.

Under the old rules, both courts would have the ability to issue those injunctions.

And they directly contradict each other.

Sure, you can throw as many of these hypotheticals at me as you want, because the answer will always be the same. The New York injunction will stop all migrants being sent to a 3rd country, including those in Dallas. The only way to lift this injunction is for a higher court to overrule it.

And since I'm sure you're confused about this aspect; no, the fact that the New York court issued an injunction does not contradict my previous post about the New York courts not being able to compel an action outside its jurisdiction, because in all cases of deportation, it's the federal government who is the key actor, and they have nationwide jurisdiction in this regard.

But not all injunctions deal with executive orders. As the example above.

I never said otherwise, and it's an irrelevant distinction for the purposes of this debate.

 

[HereticBD]

Liberals need to calm down and realize what absolute hypocrites they will be when their boys are in charge. You'll eventually love this shit. Don't act like you won't be furiously jacking off when a President of your choice is taking advantage of this ruling. You have no actual principles, or anything. You just don't like that this ruling came when your team was out of power.

 

[heloder]

Liberals need to calm down and realize what absolute hypocrites they will be when their boys are in charge. You'll eventually love this shit. Don't act like you won't be furiously jacking off when a President of your choice is taking advantage of this ruling. You have no actual principles, or anything. You just don't like that this ruling came when your team was out of power.

You tell those make-believe people from the future!

 

[HereticBD]

You tell those make-believe people from the future!

You'll fuckin' love it. This has been a bi-partisan issue for fucking ever. Even one of the Liberal justices said as much two years ago. When Democrats were in power of course. She, like you, will change your mind when it's politically convenient to do so.

 

[Hog-train]

Sure, you can throw as many of these hypotheticals at me as you want, because the answer will always be the same. The New York injunction will stop all migrants being sent to a 3rd country, including those in Dallas. The only way to lift this injunction is for a higher court to overrule it.

And since I'm sure you're confused about this aspect; no, the fact that the New York court issued an injunction does not contradict my previous post about the New York courts not being able to compel an action outside its jurisdiction, because in all cases of deportation, it's the federal government who is the key actor, and they have nationwide jurisdiction in this regard.

If the NY courts issues a nationwide injunction, it literally just did compel an action outside it's jurisdiction.

 

[heloder]

If the NY courts issues a nationwide injunction, it literally just did compel an action outside it's jurisdiction.

The action was already compelled by the federal government. The injunction halts it. Since the federal government has nationwide jurisdiction in cases regarding deportation, the injunction is inherently nationwide.

Props to me for predicting this would confuse you.

 

[Hit-N-Run]

Has this ever been an issue before or is it just crazy Trump and him pissing on the constitution that’s the problem?

Any other president’s have this many battles with the courts?

 

[HereticBD]

Has this ever been an issue before

Yes. Both parties have been bitching about it for decades. One of the Liberal Justices that just voted against it, was all for it two years ago, conveniently when a Democrat was in power. They both got what they wanted, but the Dems are just mad because they aren't in power currently. They will love this ruling when they are.

 

[Hog-train]

The action was already compelled by the federal government. The injunction halts it. Since the federal government has nationwide jurisdiction in cases regarding deportation, the injunction is inherently nationwide.

Props to me for predicting this would confuse you.

My scenario is a hypothetical one where two or more district courts can contradict each other. It's not that complicated bro.

You're just making it overly complicated.

 

[Mr Holmes]

My scenario is a hypothetical one where two or more district courts can contradict each other. It's not that complicated bro.

You're just making it overly complicated.

I get what you're saying. It makes no sense for one district court to make a ruling that can impact another court at the same level also reviewing the same situation.

 

[Mr Holmes]

Liberals need to calm down and realize what absolute hypocrites they will be when their boys are in charge. You'll eventually love this shit. Don't act like you won't be furiously jacking off when a President of your choice is taking advantage of this ruling. You have no actual principles, or anything. You just don't like that this ruling came when your team was out of power.

This. These guys would be creaming in their pants if Biden was able to use this for student loan forgiveness.

 

[BFoe]

I get what you're saying. It makes no sense for one district court to make a ruling that can impact another court at the same level also reviewing the same situation.

It can make sense though it certain situations. There are situations where, until the legality/constitutionality of a thing is established, you risk harm that that isn’t mitigated by a ruling that only affects the plaintiffs, or even a district or state.

 

[heloder]

My scenario is a hypothetical one where two or more district courts can contradict each other. It's not that complicated bro.

You're just making it overly complicated.

How am I the one making it complicated? The hypothetical scenario you came up with is very similar to the current issue with birthright citizenship. The Federal government does something legally questionable (in your scenario—deporting people to a 3rd country), and a district court issued an injunction against them. This injunction takes precedence over whatever other district court rules until the legality is settled by a higher court. That's all there is to it.

How do you still not understand that? It's not some maelstrom of chaos and uncertainty. It's extremely straight-forward. A district court questions the legality of something, an injunction is issued, and the case is settled by a higher court. Period. It doesn't matter if another court on the same level rules a different way; the precedence goes to the injunction that protects the class in question. In your scenario, the injunction is nationwide, because the Federal government has jurisdiction over the entire country in matters pertaining to deportation.

If you want a hypothetical scenario where the injunction isn't nationwide, then create a scenario where the Federal government isn't the party issuing the edict. In most (but not all) such scenarios, the district court's jurisdiction would be limited to their district. In that scenario, if a district court in New York ruled one way and a Texas court ruled another, one would not interfere with the other. So in other words, it would not be chaos either.

Do you know what would be chaos though? If the Supreme Court ruled that nationwide injunctions are illegal. In that scenario, instead of one injunction being issued until legality is settled, you could potentially have thousands upon thousands of lawsuits all being filed at the same time, tying up the court system for who the fuck knows how long. A scenario which also potentially leaves untold thousands of people unprotected from a potentially illegal act, because they are unable to sue the government.

Not only is that pure chaos, but it also leaves the door wide open for irreparable harm to be done by bad actors. And the way the SCOTUS ruling was handled, those bad actors very well may not ever be held accountable for their actions, because their victims were not afforded legal protection.

I almost think you're trolling, because I'm having a difficult time believing that you still can't understand that. Either that or you just don't want to acknowledge it, because you realize how catastrophic the results could be.