The Court should have and easily could have established a narrow rule upholding a district court’s order of nationwide injunctive relief when a nationwide executive order overturns a previously established Supreme Court decision ensuring a constitutional right. It would be a limited rule because Presidents have rarely tried to use executive orders to terminate explicit constitutional rights. After all, we are only talking about injunctive relief — freezing all government action until the merits are resolved.
This is not the mifepristone case, where a district court is evaluating if a drug is harming specific plaintiffs in one case, and other potential plaintiffs might not be affected. Here the President is unilaterally imposing a national rule, demanding swift deportations to deprive citizens of their citizenship under a rule that is applicable to everyone nationally. Forcing every affected citizen to bring suit to defend their constitutional right — or join separate class actions in every district court — in order to get injunctive relief is wasteful, unwise, unnecessary, unjust and cruel.
Once a district court has determined that the citizens in one district are likely to prevail and are likely to suffer irreparable harm without injunctive relief, then, because the issue is a constitutional right, the President is demanding swift action, and the consequences are nationwide, the appropriate injunctive relief should be nationwide.
Instead of treating the district court like an unruly child exceeding its authority, the Justices should have established a nationwide district court injunction rule that reduces litigation and swiftly addresses the President’s effort to terminate a constitutional right. It was the President who chose to challenge a constitutional right precipitously with a nationwide executive order. Shamefully, the Supreme Court majority failed to respond appropriately and judiciously.
Executive overreach has reached a new hHe appears high in Trump's regime.
Executive overreach has reached a new high under Trump, at least since the civil war. The Supreme's are not supposed to be biased - their job is to closely examine the previous decisions and laws to determine which road is best, but obviously are being swayed by political alliances. To me, at least, this indicates that it is time to have another upheaval in how government works in the United States - perhaps it is time for direct votes on every issue, and (as Shakespeare said), get rid of all the politicians.
The Court should have and easily could have established a narrow rule upholding a district court’s order of nationwide injunctive relief when a nationwide executive order overturns a previously established Supreme Court decision ensuring a constitutional right. It would be a limited rule because Presidents have rarely tried to use executive orders to terminate explicit constitutional rights. After all, we are only talking about injunctive relief — freezing all government action until the merits are resolved.
This is not the mifepristone case, where a district court is evaluating if a drug is harming specific plaintiffs in one case, and other potential plaintiffs might not be affected. Here the President is unilaterally imposing a national rule, demanding swift deportations to deprive citizens of their citizenship under a rule that is applicable to everyone nationally. Forcing every affected citizen to bring suit to defend their constitutional right — or join separate class actions in every district court — in order to get injunctive relief is wasteful, unwise, unnecessary, unjust and cruel.
Once a district court has determined that the citizens in one district are likely to prevail and are likely to suffer irreparable harm without injunctive relief, then, because the issue is a constitutional right, the President is demanding swift action, and the consequences are nationwide, the appropriate injunctive relief should be nationwide.
Instead of treating the district court like an unruly child exceeding its authority, the Justices should have established a nationwide district court injunction rule that reduces litigation and swiftly addresses the President’s effort to terminate a constitutional right. It was the President who chose to challenge a constitutional right precipitously with a nationwide executive order. Shamefully, the Supreme Court majority failed to respond appropriately and judiciously.
Executive overreach has reached a new hHe appears high in Trump's regime.
Executive overreach has reached a new high under Trump, at least since the civil war. The Supreme's are not supposed to be biased - their job is to closely examine the previous decisions and laws to determine which road is best, but obviously are being swayed by political alliances. To me, at least, this indicates that it is time to have another upheaval in how government works in the United States - perhaps it is time for direct votes on every issue, and (as Shakespeare said), get rid of all the politicians.
Or get the politicians off the SC.
Your comments are too lengthy and became obscure.
To you.