Posted on 06/27/2025 7:18:05 AM PDT by CaptainK
The justices found federal judges had exceeded their power by issuing temporary pauses on President Trump’s order ending birthright citizenship. But they made no ruling on the constitutionality of the order itself.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Roberts’ “There are no Obama judges…” statement during Trump’s first term was a lie, and he knew it. Give the left and inch, and they’ll take a mile. The forum shopping, and the judge shopping within fora this year, has been absolutely outrageous. Hopefully we’re seeing the end of that
Reading fast, but this paragraph sort of lays that out, while they shoot down KBJ's dumb argument about "bills of peace"
The bill of peace lives in modern form, but not as the universal in- junction. It is instead analogous to the modern class action—which, in federal court, is governed by Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See ibid. Rule 23 requires numerosity (such that joinder is impracticable), common questions of law or fact, typicality, and representative parties who adequately protect the interests of the class. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23(a). The requirements for a bill of peace were virtually identical. See 7A Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure§1751, at 10 and n. 4. By forging a shortcut to relief that benefits par- ties and nonparties alike, universal injunctions impermissibly circumvent Rule 23’s procedural protections.
“Among the categories of individuals born in the United States and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.”
This ruling indicates that these sweeping national injunctions have been beyond the authority of district court judges, essentially saying the rulings have been out of bounds. Today, Congress should be preparing impeachments of each of the judges who have issued national injunctions - impeachment for incompetence.
These dissents are fueling Alito to strengthen the Unitary Executive. Alito also getting some payback for Roberts' underhanded treachery in A. A. R. P., ET AL. v TRUMP, the Tren de Aragua qualified for removal under the Alien Enemies Act.
We will not dwell on JUSTICE JACKSON’s argument, which
is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent,
not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this:
JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing
an imperial Judiciary.
LOL
BFL
Unless they ignore SCOTUS.
Yes. Limited to the parties.
No it means it is limited to litigants.
So, each anchor baby would have to sue, individually.
JUSTICE JACKSON skips over that part. Because analyzing
the governing statute involves boring “legalese,” post, at
3, she seeks to answer “a far more basic question of enormous
practical significance: May a federal court in the
United States of America order the Executive to follow the
law?” Ibid. In other words, it is unecessary to consider
whether Congress has constrained the Judiciary; what matters
is how the Judiciary may constrain the Executive.
JUSTICE JACKSON would do well to heed her own admonition:
“[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by
law.” Ibid. That goes for judges too.
That's got to be Thomas., who appears to be on his last nerve with this airhead.
Bless your heart. They’ll just ignore SCOTUS until next June. Rinse, repeat.
Yeah, those convictions will sail right through the Senate!
And Trump will ignore them.
PEOPLE HAVE NO IDEA HOW MANY CHINESE WOMEN-—VERY PREGNANT HAVE COME OVER TO LOS ANGELES & THAT AREA TO “HAVE THEIR BABIES HERE”.
IT IS A THRIVING BUSINESS. OLD MOTELS ARE BOUGHT & USED EXCLUSIVELY FOR THIS PURPOSE.
KID GETS DUAL CITIZENSHIP-—
GETS TO ATTEND COLLEGE HERE FOR PENNIES.
We can hope for that change in behavior.
The dissent worries that the Citizenship Clause challenge will never
reach this Court, because if the plaintiffs continue to prevail, they will
have no reason to petition for certiorari. And if the Government keeps
losing, it will “ha[ve] no incentive to file a petition here . . . because the
outcome of such an appeal would be preordained.” Post, at 42 (opinion of
SOTOMAYOR, J.). But at oral argument, the Solicitor General acknowl-edged
that challenges to the Executive Order are pending in multiple
circuits, Tr. of Oral Arg. 50, and when asked directly “When you lose one
of those, do you intend to seek cert?”, the Solicitor General responded,
“yes, absolutely.” Ibid. And while the dissent speculates that the Gov-ernment
would disregard an unfavorable opinion from this Court, the
Solicitor General represented that the Government will respect both the
judgments and the opinions of this Court. See id., at 62–63
So, the majority figures that they'll ultimately have to decide the issue on the merits after it percolates in the lower courts for a couple of years. That's going to be a knock-down drag-out fight, with an enormous amount of political heat at all levels.
Should be fun.
so does Trump’s EO affect anchor babies going forward
no US birth certificate issued unless legal parents
and existing anchor babies are unaffected?
“but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to EACH plaintiff with standing to sue.”
Held: Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that
Congress has given to federal courts. The Court grants the Govern-
ment’s applications for a partial stay of the injunctions entered below,
but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary
to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue. Pp. 4–
26.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.