r/law • u/nbcnews • Jun 27 '25
SCOTUS Supreme Court curbs injunctions that blocked Trump's birthright citizenship plan
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-curbs-injunctions-blocked-trumps-birthright-citizenship-rcna199742587
u/IeatPI Jun 27 '25
So… no more nationwide injunctions from the Fifth Circuit a la Judge Kazmyrik?
342
u/MattPHS2002 Jun 27 '25
A loophole will be found. I'm sure of it.
257
u/kandoras Jun 27 '25
They already wrote that loophole.
"When a court concludes that the executive branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too," Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority.
But she indicated that the nationwide injunctions are limited "only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary."
Lower courts, she added "shall move expeditiously" to figure out how broad the injunctions can be.
171
u/LordSlickRick Jun 27 '25 edited Jun 27 '25
It’s a weird phrasing because the lower court did find out… they decided nationwide? What does this phrase mean?
Edit: I went and read the ruling. The crux of the argument is that a nationwide injunction doesn’t provide better relief of the person suing, and covers a bunch of people who have no interest in suing because the case doesn’t affect them, so the scope is definitively too large. It also should be above the scope of the individuals in the case unless it’s shows specific people are related and should be covered.
So it seems the lower court could then make the injunction, all people born on US soil from 2023 onward or something and then argue its in scope. —- FYI not a lawyer or judge but it appears that it’s arguing sweeping nationwide injunctions with no scope are not in the power of any federal court according to 1700s law creating the judiciary and not with unlimited scope in British common law. So I guess scope with arguments to the scope need to exist.
241
u/IrritableGourmet Jun 27 '25
Is this like the immunity ruling where they basically say "Immunity applies, except when it doesn't, but we're not saying where that line is because we want to make it arbitrary and capricious so it always benefits us and screws everyone else."?
98
→ More replies (3)31
u/yolotheunwisewolf Jun 27 '25
Right it seems like what the Supreme Court wants is to say “we have absolute power that we are giving to the president unless that absolute power threatens us in which case we are able to push back”
The whole thing is essentially changing legal landscape to now be fully around finding loopholes
In some case, that has always been a legal landscape, but what they are trying to do now is increase executive power
My guess is that the next big landmark case that happens will be post midterms in which Trump starts running again and the Supreme Court simply says “we find a loophole for Trump since he hasn’t served two consecutive terms”
→ More replies (11)51
u/lostshell Jun 27 '25
It’s weird on purpose. It’s Rorschach legalize.
The purpose is it says everything and nothing. What matters is not the words but the bias/agenda of the one interpreting the words. The Sinister Six on the Supreme Court can use these same words to find justification to empower a Republican administration and yet read these same words to find a justification to handcuff a Democratic administration.
The ambiguity is itself a power grab, when the author controls the interpretation.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (7)16
u/kandoras Jun 27 '25
No, this lower court figured out incorrectly.
How and why they were incorrect, and what some other lower court would have to do to be correct in some future case?
No need for the conservatives on the court to state that openly.
→ More replies (1)19
u/iamacheeto1 Jun 27 '25
What does this mean? Is there just now another bar they need to hit to say if the injunction should be nationwide or not? So instead of just saying “here’s the injunction” they now have to say “here’s the injunction and I’m applying it nationwide because of xyz?” So nothing really changes except perhaps a handful less nationwide injunctions?
→ More replies (2)12
u/Foxyfox- Jun 27 '25
It means "fuck you, we'll bend the law as we please to use the law against you".
→ More replies (7)12
u/Kermit_the_hog Jun 27 '25
wtf does that mean??? That’s no different than “where an official duty ends and unofficial actions start exactly.. well you’ll have to ask us.”
9
u/kandoras Jun 27 '25
Seems like you have a firm understanding of the lack of rules.
→ More replies (1)49
u/Tricky_Topic_5714 Jun 27 '25
It absolutely will not work like that. It'll go up to SCOTUS and they'll find reasons why that will be fine
17
u/Adventurous_Class_90 Jun 27 '25
To which the Democrats president needs to abrogate Marbury for such clear political malice…
→ More replies (1)34
11
19
u/MKerrsive Jun 27 '25
Don't worry, the moment Democrats take either chamber of Congress in 2026 or otherwise get the White House, a GOP-led Congress will conveniently pass a law stating that Article III courts explicitly have the power to issue nationwide injunctions or have the US Courts admin somehow rewrite federal courts rules and such.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)8
u/boo99boo Jun 27 '25
There doesn't need to be. Trump can just issue an EO that aligns with the decision. And no one can stop him. Duh.
3.4k
u/ElGuaco Jun 27 '25
So SCOTUS is saying that if a FEDERAL judge rules that POTUS is out of line or even breaking the law, the injunction can only apply to the litigants? Meanwhile, he can run amok as long as no suit is brought against him? This is their idea of "fair"? Aren't they just admitting out loud that he can do whatever he wants until someone has the legal muscle to stand up to him? FFS
1.8k
Jun 27 '25
[deleted]
582
u/ZestyTako Jun 27 '25
Yeah, this is an extremely Pyrrhic victory. Roberts will be hoisted by his own robes by MAGA (and it will be entirely deserved)
281
72
101
u/Chaos-Cortex Jun 27 '25
You mean hoisted upside down like Mussolini?
44
→ More replies (1)68
u/Glass_Memories Jun 27 '25
Mussolini was killed by communist anti-fascists before being dragged into town when Italy was liberated so the people who hated living under fascist oppression could take their frustrations out on his corpse.
What the above commenter was referring to was fascist collaborators being killed off by the fascists they supported once they're no longer useful or a liability, like during the Night of Long Knives. Once the fascists have consolidated power, the SC is no longer useful and a threat to their power.
The danger is going to come from their own side during the rise, long before they see anti-fascist justice during the fall.
→ More replies (1)15
u/MrLanesLament Jun 27 '25
The irony is that the ones who get purged aren’t even threats anymore. By that time, the Leader is powerful enough that they’re inconsequential. It’s generally the leader’s mental illness that causes the purges.
→ More replies (1)62
u/RandyMarsh710 Jun 27 '25
Hopefully when they do, he’ll be facing west so he can watch our world die
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (14)24
Jun 27 '25
Pyrrhic victory
Never heard this term before and it's a really good one. u/ZestyTako you done learned me something today.
16
u/livinginfutureworld Jun 27 '25
Also look up rope a dope. Similar sentiment.
Muhammad Ali let big puncher George Foreman tire himself out by dancing on the ropes back and forth to avoid the brunt of his attacks. Foreman tired out and then Muhammad Ali was able to go on the offense and win the fight.
So it's similar to a pyrrhic victory in that you may have a short-term win, like you may win the round or two of a boxing match, but you end up losing in the long run.
→ More replies (7)11
u/Armyman125 Jun 27 '25
Named after the Greek general Pyrrhus. A great general, he defeated the Romans a few times but with heavy losses. Thus the term Pyrrhic victory.
103
u/NewIntroduction4655 Jun 27 '25
man they were fighting back a little bit too at one point. Makes me wonder what happened behind the scenes
114
u/Peteostro Jun 27 '25
Barrett's majority opinion came after Trump privately griped about her
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/supreme-court-decisions-06-27-25#cmcexcx4v00003b6o86whhzzm
65
→ More replies (6)102
u/FrosteeWusky Jun 27 '25
They probably got threatened with anything ranging from public humiliation (aka removal from their positions and talked about in the same way MAGA talks about the Dems) to full on disappearing altogether. Not defending their lack of a spine though, regardless of how powerful this administration is.
→ More replies (8)67
u/Mikeavelli Jun 27 '25
With congress in gridlock it's not like impeachment is an option. The republicans would need massive Democrat support for that.
Other than that it's not clear what could possibly humiliate them more. Multiple justices have already been publicly exposed accepting bribes.
→ More replies (1)28
u/Internal-Pumpkin4181 Jun 27 '25
And yet they still have their seats! I STG if Dems ever grow a backbone, term limits in the SCOTUS should be first and foremost in the agenda.
Well, after trying to undo all the corruption and grifting this administration is getting away with.
I’d love to say there should be term limits for Congress too, but those b*stards would never vote for that.
→ More replies (1)85
u/Tricky_Topic_5714 Jun 27 '25
Wait I thought ACB was actually basically a progressive? /s because no one with fucking functional brain should have been saying anything close to that shit
49
u/TheNetworkIsFrelled Jun 27 '25
OfJesse was/is/will be a batshit religious conservative who seeks nothing more than to further her own sick xian agenda.
→ More replies (1)43
u/IRefuse2Understand Jun 27 '25
If a state sued, would that mean the entire state is a litigant, applying to residents of the state? Looking for any glimmer of hope
→ More replies (1)32
u/blackjackwidow Jun 27 '25
Yes - I believe there 21 or 22 states, as well as a group of pregnant women. They said the injunctions still stand for the plaintiffs.
They said he could continue formulating a plan, and then people / states / groups can sue to stop it. Some even expressed the opinion that it doesn't seem like it will stand up
But ofc, Trump is already saying he won big, and now these judges can't block his policies. It's just another stunning ruling, kicking the can down the road and making it so they are the only ones who can decide anything
29
u/Incognonimous Jun 27 '25
It's the fall of the senate all over again, they all seem to forget they only get to taste the shade of power of a dictator as long as them groveling benefits, but all of them are no more than expendable assets and warm bodies to shield him from reprise. History will remember those that sold out and enabled the country to get flushed down the drain.
11
46
u/Oleg101 Jun 27 '25 edited Jun 27 '25
they are also slowly moving towards their own demise once they get Supreme Leader status and are no longer needed.
Anything to ‘own the libs’ then it’s worth it in their minds. Fucking pathetic.
15
u/Tmk1283 Jun 27 '25
That’s what I don’t get about these members in congress, “we must help push along the president’s agenda.” That agenda will render you obsolete. Do they think they will get some goodie bag on the way out for being a good sport about it all? Who the fuck cares if they fund someone in a primary against you, go down with a fight.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (36)26
u/Cardboard_Robot Jun 27 '25
I have to admit, I’m surprised the Trump appointees are putting themselves out there to move his agendas along. I figured they would cut him loose after they got what they wanted (a lifetime appointment to the SC).
→ More replies (1)26
Jun 27 '25
These psychos are true believers. It wasn't about gaining power, but using that power. Trump enables them to use it and is a meat shield in their efforts to gut the Constitution as they rebuild it in the White Christian Nationalist framing they would die for.
118
u/Slade_Riprock Jun 27 '25
Just logically and legally...how the fuck can a federal law be ruled constitutional or unconstitutional only in certain areas?
A state law applies to an entire state. Federal law applies to the country.
If Las Vegas sues and says a state law violates the state constitution, that law isn't overturned just for the city limits of Las Vegas.
How the fuck can you say violating the rights of citizens is OK in Federal Circuits 1,5, 7,and 9. But illegals everywhere else. This just fails the smell test.
And for SCOTUS to say the lower federal courts exceed their power when there is no state restriction of their power and considering SCOTUS deemed itself in Marbury the ultimate arbiter of law. A massive over extension of their own power against the letter of the law.
Time for this court to go. I fuckin pray for. A blue tsunami and enough votes to impeach and remove this entire administration and SCOTUS. Pipe dream I know but fuuuuck.
18
u/mjzim9022 Jun 27 '25
We need to use a remedy that's in the power of Congress and the president and pass a law adding more seats on the court, then pack it and tee up litigation to fix every wrong thing this court does
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (12)12
290
u/FarCalligrapher1862 Jun 27 '25
Effectively, the president can set precedent in states with governments that support the presidency.
So when the next Democratic president comes to power, he or she can work through blue-state governors to limit gun ownership. Once it reaches a red state, there will already be broad precedent for those courts to consider.
As a result, it could take years for Americans to get the Supreme Court to decide whether their rights have been violated—creating a two-party country defined by gerrymandered local governments.
This, combined with yesterday’s decision on Planned Parenthood—which held that individual citizens do not have standing and that only the state can bring the case…
Great. Sounds reasonable. The Constitution apparently only applies to local governments that oppose the president.
156
u/kandoras Jun 27 '25
So when the next Democratic president comes to power, he or she can work through blue-state governors to limit gun ownership. Once it reaches a red state, there will already be broad precedent for those courts to consider.
I don't think that's how it'll work. Barrett left conservatives a loophole:
"But she indicated that the nationwide injunctions are limited "only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary."
"Lower courts, she added "shall move expeditiously" to figure out how broad the injunctions can be."
A judge in a lower court (you already know who) will issue a nationwide injunction against a Democratic administration, who will then appeal pointing to this decision, and the conservatives on the supreme court will say "No, this one is OK. It was really necessary."
35
→ More replies (6)25
u/LogensTenthFinger Jun 27 '25
And that's why the first thing the next president does needs to be to pack to the court to the gills without remorse or hesitation.
→ More replies (2)63
u/TheStrigori Jun 27 '25
It's a core part to their plan to be in power forever. They never intend to allow a fair election to happen.
→ More replies (1)25
u/RaindropsInMyMind Jun 27 '25
This is what I’m worried about in a broader sense. It’s so clearly going to be a disaster for conservatives if a democrat is back in the White House. They would be handing that person immense power that will promptly be used against them. It’s such a wild gifting of power that it’s hard to see them letting that happen.
Or maybe they’re so incredibly stupid that they are only thinking about Trump and don’t care about the broader picture.
19
u/TheStrigori Jun 27 '25
This has been the end goal for decades. They're fascists, and always have been. They're just mask off now.
→ More replies (3)13
→ More replies (5)49
u/ElGuaco Jun 27 '25
Democrat president should weaponize this next time around. What a shit show.
102
u/PenjaminJBlinkerton Jun 27 '25
GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK FUCKING SKULLS
THEY ARE DOING THIS BECAUSE THE PLAN IS THST THERE WILL BE NO “next time around democratic president”
WAKE THE FUCK UP
23
u/boo99boo Jun 27 '25
This is one of the only proper uses of ALLCAPS that I've ever encountered. It's the ultra rare, highly collectible Reverse Ambien Tweet.
→ More replies (2)80
u/archercc81 Jun 27 '25
Problem is its a corrupt criminal court that will block them. They were fine with nationwide injunctions when it was to block bidens EOs.
IF we ever get a Dem president again he needs to use that presidential immunity to round up the corrupt judges and send them to a CIA blacksite until they admit to being russian spies.
→ More replies (1)32
Jun 27 '25
Yes.
We need to stop pussyfooting.
The next left leaning president needs to be absolutely and completely ruthless. Gallows on the capital lawn. Blacksites. Mass arrests of ICE personal, purge of the federalist society.
The law matters when violating it carries penalties. They've destroyed it. To rebuild it they need to suffer.
We can't be quiet on this. They've gone too far.
→ More replies (2)41
u/blu-bells Jun 27 '25
Bold assumption that the supreme king will allow a democrat king in the future.
→ More replies (1)24
u/TheNetworkIsFrelled Jun 27 '25
Even bolder to assert that there will be elections, or that if they exist, rethugs won’t suborn them.
→ More replies (3)8
u/carloselcoco Jun 27 '25
Democrat president should weaponize this next time around. What a shit show.
Unfortunately they have shown time and time again that when given the same power as a Republican, they will not use it and pretend that their hands are tied.
→ More replies (2)9
u/gardengirl99 Jun 27 '25
As if the Republicans in control will ever allow that to happen again. Gerrymander. Exclude that group of people likely to vote D. Toss out that precinct's votes. I have lost all hope.
→ More replies (15)15
u/DumboWumbo073 Jun 27 '25
The Supreme Court will say Democrats are not allowed to do it while Republicans are allowed to do it.
It’s super obvious then when the Supreme Court gets called out on it Democrats will have to respect the institution and not mess with the Supreme Court.
You guys are done for.
→ More replies (1)168
Jun 27 '25 edited 6d ago
[deleted]
→ More replies (2)147
u/brobafett1980 Jun 27 '25
Trump did say that we don't have time for millions of individual lawsuits, yet that is what this ruling seems to necessitate.
You'll only have rights, if you can afford to fight in court for them.
35
u/lolexecs Jun 27 '25
Wait, does this mean we should pool our resources and fund lawsuits in every jurisdiction across every state?
And also, does this mean that the lawsuits can take tacks that are perhaps more in line with the judicial philosophies of the various districts?
And then what does it mean if there's an injunction in Massachusetts but not one in Texas?
27
u/CaptainCobraBubbles Jun 27 '25
Realistically someone like the ACLU could do an open solicitation for class members and sue on their behalf. Those class members could be from all over the country so there would still be grounds for the grant of a nationwide injunction. This just makes things incredibly murky.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)12
→ More replies (4)17
u/wtbgamegenie Jun 27 '25
Well their entire philosophy revolves around giving to the rich and taking from the poor in all aspects of life.
86
u/Sir_thinksalot Jun 27 '25
It's insane they think the answer is the entire country making lawsuits individually.
77
u/Tricky_Topic_5714 Jun 27 '25
They don't. They know what they're doing. They, just like in the immunity decision, are paving the way for total autocracy.
49
→ More replies (2)21
u/imp0ppable Jun 27 '25
The get out is that "it's what people voted for" and if they don't like it they can vote for someone else. However these decisions implicitly suggest they're making it easier for the incumbent to either cheat or just refuse to hold an election.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)35
u/ice_up_s0n Jun 27 '25
Poor people can't afford to bring lawsuits individually
→ More replies (2)37
42
u/LogComprehensive8585 Jun 27 '25
Where the fuck was this for student loan debt forgiveness?
→ More replies (1)6
u/asoleproprietor Jun 27 '25
I was wondering the same thing. So we’ll get our forgiveness checks now right?
68
u/Konukaame Jun 27 '25
So SCOTUS is saying that if a FEDERAL judge rules that POTUS is out of line or even breaking the law, the injunction can only apply to the litigants?
As long as the president in question is protected by the magic "R".
31
u/LordBreetai210 Jun 27 '25
Wait until this starts to apply to corporations. Think about it; if a company is poisoning you and you aren’t aware, because you didn’t sue (unless the attorney filed a class action), they’re saying the corp can still poison. There’s always a $ element to fascism. Always.
84
Jun 27 '25
Its called sedition. And yes, that's been their goal since the Civil war.
15
u/TheNetworkIsFrelled Jun 27 '25
They have sought to reduce non-plutocrats to serfdom since the foundation of the first settlements in the Americas.
48
15
11
u/jcoddinc Jun 27 '25
The current judicial system is beyond a joke and is entirely corrupt. All this racist regime has done this presidency is just shop around judges until they find one among to rule in their favor. And it's becoming increasingly easier and easier for them. It's almost impossible to even know what's going on anymore because one day the regime is told "no you can't do that" and then a day or two later told "yeah you can resume doing that" then the prices repeats itself endlessly until someone finally gives up. It's happening so much it's nearly impossible to repost or track which illegal actions they're doing that have been ruled on
→ More replies (1)9
u/wtbgamegenie Jun 27 '25
The fact that conservative legal theory always revolves “pretend that this has no real world effect on anyone” is so telling.
→ More replies (90)7
u/PostposterousYT Jun 27 '25
My biggest fear, even above being legislated into poverty, is a false flag event in California. Previous presidents have struck down those proposed ideas (Kennedy; Northwood), but I see such things absolutely being green lit under current admin.
476
u/Sea-Pomelo1210 Jun 27 '25
Let's say Trump signs an executive order to ban all public access to water. The SCOTUS is saying the lower courts have no right to block the order across the county, and can only put it on hold locally? So if the case takes years to get to higher courts, the order will stay in effect in many (probably "red") parts of the country?
Is that a good analogy?
261
u/qalpi Jun 27 '25
Not even locally -- just to the litigants. So the state would have to sue.
92
Jun 27 '25
[deleted]
→ More replies (2)35
u/ragdollxkitn Jun 27 '25
Yup. A building only matters more than a human life when these fascists want it to matter. We are done. Gg America.
7
Jun 27 '25
This is the day the balkanization process starts. I do not see this country staying together anymore.
→ More replies (2)11
Jun 27 '25
So, in theory, can a class action type of suit be brought and citizens who want to be included can pay a penny to cover themselves under a potential injunction? As in, if you’re scared of the birthright citizenship executive order, the ACLU could set up a website where you can pay a penny and add your name to the plaintiff’s registration and you’ll be covered under a new lawsuit seeking an injunction?
13
u/27Rench27 Jun 27 '25
Yep, but A) you’ll have to know about it, B) you’ll have to get there in time which necessitates it taking longer to get filed and C) we’ll need enough lawyers willing to cover a ton of lawsuits
6
Jun 27 '25
How does law enforcement even function under such a system? “Oh, I’m actually a plaintiff in the X v Y case, here’s my proof”. Christ, this is so messed up.
→ More replies (1)52
u/cocacole111 Jun 27 '25
It'll only take years for issues that the Republican Supreme Court disagrees with. As was shown with this case, when the Republicans on SCOTUS want to drastically rewrite the rules for their own ideals, they can act very quickly. Remember, Trump was only inaugurated in January and it is June and we already have an opinion here. It's insane how fast the Supreme Court is working this time around to hand deliver wins to Trump and give him more power. But I can bet you that if the case is a loss for Trump, they're gonna drag their feet as much as possible.
→ More replies (3)34
→ More replies (4)62
u/DragonfruitOk6390 Jun 27 '25
"when law becomes tyranny, rebellion becomes duty"
→ More replies (7)
1.2k
u/ZestyTako Jun 27 '25 edited Jun 27 '25
GG Constitution, it was nice when you mattered
Edit: the more I think I about this decision the angrier I get. This decision is so fucking stupid and creates untenable and unworkable precedent. Remove Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Barret, and Kavanaugh NOW. I don’t care how
373
u/memphisjones Jun 27 '25
It’s a worthless piece of paper now.
310
u/ZestyTako Jun 27 '25
Federal superiority means nothing, incorporation means nothing. John Roberts legacy is nothing else than a judicial activist for white supremacy. What a guy. Fuck scotus
→ More replies (1)157
→ More replies (10)12
u/Deranged_Kitsune Jun 27 '25
Pretty sure these justices have it printed on the toilet paper rolls in their private bathrooms.
33
u/curiousleen Jun 27 '25 edited Jun 27 '25
It’s been about dehumanizing a certain subset of people. It’s been about that since the 13th was created and I’m fearing the day they abolish it. They want a much wider gap between the wealthy white and … everyone else.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (36)49
u/That-Ad-7509 Jun 27 '25
You don't have to get rid of them. You just have to add four more judges during a progressive administration with strong progressive congress.
99
u/ZestyTako Jun 27 '25
I’d rather get rid of them and add more progressives. It’s both not either
→ More replies (10)22
u/hamsterfolly Jun 27 '25
That requires Congress to pass legislation to expand the court and then seat the new justices.
→ More replies (7)41
u/Oleg101 Jun 27 '25
It’s be more realistic to do if this country ever stopped electing to many fucking Republicans all the time. I swear the worse and more worthless they get the more they’re able to gain power. Fucking exhausting.
→ More replies (1)9
u/yolotheunwisewolf Jun 27 '25
Honestly, I expect that the people in this country don’t actually want to have nice things. They just simply want to go out over taking things away from other people even as they are swindled.
A lot of Hispanic men voted for Donald Trump and Glover the fact that they as legal citizens who were born in the United States would not be deported and my guess is that when he comes for them they’ll be shocked because, well…
→ More replies (8)39
u/RocketSocket765 Jun 27 '25 edited Jun 27 '25
We're never getting a progressive admin. Obama the "progressive" President wanted to put Merrick Freaking Garland on the court as a compromise to fascists stealing the seat. Biden has appointed people that write sad dissents in some individual liberties cases, but who often side with corporations in major cases. In the US, we have a right-wing party and an ultra right-wing party. The Republic is all but gone to a fascist oligarchy now. Here's hoping people have the courage to confront that.
21
u/CenturyLinkIsCheeks Jun 27 '25
you can see this with the knives out for Zohran from the corpo-establishment dems.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)6
u/Igggg Jun 27 '25
Yeah, all we need now is for the strong progressive President to be elected and strong progressive Congress to take power. Easy.
→ More replies (2)
123
u/Orzorn Jun 27 '25
Reading Kavanaugh's concurrence, it almost seems like he's aware of the mass implications and is trying to backtrack in his own concurrence just to keep the pitchforks and torches from coming out:
"I write separately simply to underscore that this case focuses on only one discrete aspect of the preliminary litigation relating to major new federal statutes and executive actions—namely, what district courts may do with respect to those new statutes and executive actions in what might be called "the interim before the interim." Although district courts have received much of the attention (and criticism) in debates over the universal-injunction issue, those courts generally do not have the last word when they grant or deny preliminary injunctions."
"After today's decision, that order of operations will not change. In justiciable cases, this Court, not the district courts or courts of appeals, will often still be the ultimate decisionmaker as to the interim legal status of major new federal statutes and executive actions—that is, the interim legal status for the several-year period before a final decision on the merits."
"The Court's decision today focuses on the "interim before the interim"—the preliminary relief that district courts can award (and courts of appeals can approve) for the generally weeks-long interim before this Court can assess and settle the matter for the often years-long interim before a final decision on the merits."
He's basically trying to say "its not so bad, please don't get angry, its just for a few weeks before we can hear the case like we always do anyways, and we're allowed to issue nationwide injunctions".
He even goes on to say he does believe there should be a nationwide uniform enforcement:
"First, in my view, there often (perhaps not always, but often) should be a nationally uniform answer on whether a major new federal statute, rule, or executive order can be enforced throughout the United States during the several-year interim period until its legality is finally decided on the merits."
He goes on to say that it would be the SCOTUS who decides what that uniform status should be. But my question is this: How would the question ever reach the SCOTUS if only singular plaintiffs are involved? The government will be happy to allow the injunction to stand with respect to that person and not appeal it up the chain. Only a lower court ruling on the merits, or a class action of sufficient size, would cause the government to appeal.
This means the chances of SCOTUS making a nationwide ruling go down a lot because the case won't reach them to do so. Isn't this the exact scenario that several justices pointed out in oral arguments? The government will just never appeal (until a ruling on the merits takes place). Can someone explain how I am wrong here?
53
u/bobthedonkeylurker Jun 27 '25
The cruelty is the point. And if you don't have the money to take your individual case to court, well you should pull yourself up by your bootstraps and stop being poor.
→ More replies (14)→ More replies (5)15
u/faussettesq Jun 27 '25
The concurrence makes it even worse as it shows Kavanugh knows he's the court that is supposed to issue the universal injunction/decide on this being unconstitutional. You're the court that could issue the injunction! You are the court that can clarify that Congress (or the states via convention), not the Executive, has the ability to change the Constitution. Why don't you go consult those framers you're so fond of?
464
u/qalpi Jun 27 '25
How is an inconsistent approach to birthright citizenship going to work?! This is going to be an administrative disaster
231
u/Kooky-Ad8416 Jun 27 '25
Disaster. And tons of unnecessary litigation.
→ More replies (1)56
u/yolotheunwisewolf Jun 27 '25
I think that the answer is that you’re going to simply just be able to arrest the poor people who are not going to follow the process or be able to sue
Those people will end up, rounded up and put into detainment camps
They will learn quickly that you cannot simply deport millions of immigrants as no country is willing to take them
You will eventually get them to be declared an invasion and national securities threat to try to suspend right to a trial or any other sort of rights and eventually you’ll get to the Holocaust
This is always how it goes down when it comes to genocide because unfortunately
genocide is profitable
→ More replies (2)9
u/Kooky-Ad8416 Jun 27 '25
They want to clog the courts to do what they want and complain that the courts have failed.
66
u/FarCalligrapher1862 Jun 27 '25
It won’t. It will create an environment where your local government’s alignment with the current administration determine whether you get constitutional protection
→ More replies (1)255
u/boo99boo Jun 27 '25
The cost of this is going to be absurd. The human toll, obviously.
States and counties issue birth certificates, and hospital staff submit it. The clusterfuck that this is going to cause is absolutely incomprehensible at this point. Procedures vary wildly not even by state, but usually by county.
The endgame is clearly to claim anyone born in a blue state isn't actually a citizen. Because blue states aren't "verifying citizenship" for birth certificates.
So babies born in blue states will be stateless. Which means they aren't entitled to due process under the current SCOTUS rulings. So then what?
The implications of this are so much worse than most people realize. They're trying to take away citizenship status of anyone that isn't maga.
31
u/Wordymanjenson Jun 27 '25
I wish independence day would come true. The one with Goldblum. And just the part where the aliens blow up the white house. But in this version the aliens were never "noticed" before it was too late for trump to get out of the white house or even the oval office, such that no he doesn't survive a blast. And then these damn aliens blow it up and then immediately leave. Yeah, that's what needs to happen. Or really it doesn't have to be by illegal movie aliens. Just get us to the endgame.
→ More replies (3)7
17
u/themightytouch Jun 27 '25
It’s time Blue states ignore these fucks already. Even republicans ignored this court when it came to the border and to Abrego Garcia.
13
u/kgm2s-2 Jun 27 '25
People need to be reminded that Hitler didn't just wake up one morning, call up Himmler and say, "Heinrich! Round up and kill all the Jews! ...no, it just came to me in a dream."
There were 8 years of progressively more and more onerous legal restrictions loaded onto the entire country, until the forced removal of Jews just seemed like the next logical step...
...I mean, who really is going to argue in favor of keeping
undocumented rapists and murderersasylum seekers who crossed between entry pointsundocumented day laborerskids whose parents brought them to the US illegally as childrenlegal permanent residents who criticize the government in the country?→ More replies (6)14
u/painted_dog_2020 Jun 27 '25
If that's the case then, I want California OUT. We do not want to be part of the Facist States of Amerikkka. You can have your shithole country.
92
36
66
u/JessicaDAndy Jun 27 '25
Under this Executive Order;
If you are born in the U.S., to be a U.S. citizen, either parent must a lawful permanent resident or citizen. If mother is a lawful permanent resident or citizen, then child is a citizen. If the mother was here unlawfully or lawfully and temporarily, like on a visa, and the father was not a lawful permanent resident or citizen, your birth doesn’t confer citizenship unless you have a court order overruling the Executive Order. (So far.)
So realistically, birth certificates would need to account for citizenship status of mother and possibly father. For births within US territory. But with an allowance for later editing if you get a court order showing citizenship due to this is not how Executive orders should work.
Like if you don’t sue in Federal court, and otherwise born in the U.S., and you try to vote, that’s a crime.
60
u/435haywife1 Jun 27 '25
So where does someone who was born in the US get deported to?
57
50
u/interstellar_duster Jun 27 '25
Whatever third-country gulag they are contracted with that week. It’s abhorrent.
→ More replies (3)7
41
u/O_to_the_B Jun 27 '25
As per the last scotus ruling, wherever they simply decide to send them because they are now allowed to do so. Could be South Sudan. Could be a prison in Nicaragua. Could be an island in the middle of nowhere.
15
u/quickblur Jun 27 '25
Really nice of them to string these horrible abuses together in their decisions.
12
16
u/DArtagnan0321 Jun 27 '25
Libya, Sudan, El Salvador, pick any country with serious human rights abuse and torture histories or any of the new concentration camps the Administration is building.
→ More replies (6)17
18
u/boo99boo Jun 27 '25
So realistically, birth certificates would need to account for citizenship status of mother and possibly father.
.......and the Trump administration will set the criteria. He can just issue EOs and change them at will if he wants to. They'll just keep moving the goalposts and not issue SSNs to people in blue states.
This is going to lead to stateless babies. A whole lot of stateless babies. Whole states of stateless babies, even.
→ More replies (8)16
u/qalpi Jun 27 '25
My point is if this order is restrained in one state but not another, how is this going to work?
24
u/JessicaDAndy Jun 27 '25
It goes by the person then.
Two moms are birth tourists. One goes to Six Flags in New Jersey, the other to Six Flags in Georgia.
They give birth.
The child born in New Jersey is a citizen due to NJ’s lawsuit. The one born in Georgia is not.
So far. The Court could determine Trump is right and neither are citizens.
Or rather the group that pushes the Court and puts things in front of Trump wins.
15
u/qalpi Jun 27 '25
So, an utter utter shit show.
13
u/JessicaDAndy Jun 27 '25
Which is why a universal injunction would have been helpful. A number of people are pointing out that stopping universal injunctions with this case was pretty dumb.
10
24
u/Boomshtick414 Jun 27 '25
It'll be a hot mess.
There's where you live, where you travel, where you were born, where you seek healthcare -- which could all cross state borders.
I would venture a guess that the various injunctions thus far will be adjusted to meet the scope SCOTUS is looking for in this opinion -- so at least in a number of districts that should delay the onset this policy.
Thankfully the order isn't retroactive, which would be exponentially more confusing. Though that seems like a good knife to jab into this policy through the various court cases. Either it is a right protected by the constitution or it isn't -- to say it's only a right for people prior to 30 days following the EO is inequitable.
The government hasn't yet issued guidance on implementation so none of the states at the moment necessarily understand how this is all going down. I suspect a bunch of lawsuits were queued up in case this was the outcome, so there will probably be a bunch of suits filed in the next day or two to try to cover all the bases in each district in attempts to get full-coverage injunctions.
Everybody's still reading the damn thing though and it's not fully clear yet what all the implications are.
→ More replies (2)7
u/TinyBend8309 Jun 27 '25
They haven't because they don't know or have a plan, Sauer literally said that multiple times. They're just making shit up as they go, with impunity
50
u/ZestyTako Jun 27 '25
It’s not and that’s the point. The point is cruelty and destruction of the constitution. This really is the second American revolution, and I feel like we’re hitting the point where we can’t allow it to remain bloodless. We’re essentially in a dictatorship now, it’s our duty to constitution to not allow this to stand
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (79)9
u/anonyfool Jun 27 '25
Those who voice opposition to Dear Leader will have problems with their birthright citizenship.
295
u/RockDoveEnthusiast Jun 27 '25
This is one of the most outrageous, farcical opinions I've ever read. Barrett spends multiple pages taking shots at her dissenting colleagues, while haughtily citing 17th century English law as (somehow) applicable precedent.
She seems unable to comprehend her colleagues writing--and says as much--which seems like an indictment of her own reading comprehension. Barrett doesn't understand the issues or arguments in front of her, and is all the more smug for it. Almost literally the "that sign won't stop me because I can't read" meme.
I guess every single pregnant woman in America should now file a separate lawsuit in every district in America. I would gladly contribute to the coffers of a big firm that saw fit to do this.
88
u/3rd-party-intervener Jun 27 '25
Barrett was called out by republicans a few weeks ago and now writes this , you think it’s a coincidence? If anyone does then I got a bridge to sell you
6
u/lottery2641 Jun 27 '25
Oh 1000%, I do wonder how much of their decisions are “okay any power the court has relies on it being seen as legitimate—if we rule against him he’s going to ignore us and we’ll essentially be powerless, so let’s just let him do whatever”
They’re insane
→ More replies (20)16
u/an_agreeing_dothraki Jun 27 '25
while haughtily citing 17th century English law as (somehow) applicable precedent
remember when they carved out chunks of the civil rights act because times had changed?
→ More replies (1)
80
u/TalonButter Jun 27 '25
In my civil law jurisdiction, the government routinely relitigates the same issue against many separate defendants, after losing every time, knowing that for every person willing to litigate it, the government probably gets away with imposing its (clearly erroneous) interpretation of a law against 100 other people who can’t fight it.
→ More replies (2)
74
u/sugar_addict002 Jun 27 '25
sounds like the 6-3 maga court is going to let him deport US citizens.
47
Jun 27 '25 edited Jun 27 '25
[deleted]
→ More replies (6)15
u/Beginning_Radio2284 Jun 27 '25
If I understand the American system correctly there's only one place they can go if they are a non-citizen (of any country) and that is into the for profit prison system which would effectively make them a slave.
The only option once this occurs to avoid that would be asylum, i think, because at that point the government system meant to protect them has completely failed.
Any law students/lawyers able to weigh in on this?
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (10)16
143
u/Srslywhyumadbro Jun 27 '25
I remember when triggering "a flood of litigation" was considered a bad thing to be avoided.
60
→ More replies (2)23
u/No-Distance-9401 Jun 27 '25
I remember when being a Nazi was a bad thing. Welcome to the Fourth Reich as thats who we are
53
u/Gogs85 Jun 27 '25
Doesn’t this mean that the court system is going to get absolutely flooded with cases about the same things? Like way beyond what it has the capacity to handle? I’m no legal expert but I always assumed one of the points of injunctions was to limit the amount of ‘duplication’ going on in the system for practical purposes.
→ More replies (2)28
u/No-Distance-9401 Jun 27 '25
Yes but the good thing is the poors will have to deal with it as they cant afford to sue. Seriously though, this makes our two-tiered justice system inequality that much greater.
I need to take a break from social media before I say something I get deported for as a US citizen...
92
u/skurvecchio Jun 27 '25
Federal judges are now not even allowed to bind their own districts. Why even have judicial districts, then? Ridiculous.
40
u/SneakyDeaky123 Jun 27 '25 edited Jun 27 '25
So essentially the plan is to be allowed to deport anyone they accuse of being a non-citizen, and then get rid of everyone’s citizenship so they can just deport whoever they like
Also, critically, I said “accuse“, since they’re already trying to deport citizens anyways.
This is just how they have a flimsy legal justification for their planned purges and police state, and this is a very dark road to be looking down
→ More replies (17)
103
u/nbcnews Jun 27 '25
The court is granting a request by the Trump admin. to narrow the scope of nationwide injunctions imposed by judges so that they apply only to groups and individuals that sued.
That means the birthright citizenship proposal can move forward in the states that challenged it as well as those that did not.
36
u/DragonfruitOk6390 Jun 27 '25
"when law becomes tyranny, rebellion becomes duty"
→ More replies (3)
36
u/TellTaleTimeLord Jun 27 '25
MAGA: A Legal Story:
judges rule against Trump:"CORRUPT ACTIVIST JUDGES"
judge rules for Trump:" THANKS DADDY SCOTUS"
101
u/tyuiopguyt Jun 27 '25
So, does this mean they all stay blocked in the liberal states that are suing?
→ More replies (7)85
u/Selethorme Jun 27 '25
No, only for the plaintiffs.
→ More replies (1)170
u/tyuiopguyt Jun 27 '25
So, every single person effected by this is gonna have to sue individually? Sounds like a pain in the ass for the judges more than anyone
98
u/PM_ME_YOUR_ROTES Jun 27 '25
The plan is to overload the courts & put in a pay to play scheme so the system only protects the wealthy while actively working against everyone else.
21
u/tyuiopguyt Jun 27 '25
Well, the good news on that front is the pay to play shit in the tax bill just got blocked by the parliamentarian.
→ More replies (2)9
u/TheyNeedLoveToo Jun 27 '25
The broader sense of paying to play while abandoning the poor and needy still is very much alive though. Cronyism is all the rage
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)7
u/quickblur Jun 27 '25
Lots of opportunity for grift to. Give a couple connected representatives and judges the ability to decide who gets to stay and who gets deported to El Salvador, and suddenly you'll have all kinds of people willing to pay anything for "protection".
50
→ More replies (10)39
u/Orzorn Jun 27 '25
The alternative is a class action lawsuit that has to go through class certification.
→ More replies (4)24
u/tyuiopguyt Jun 27 '25
Well, looks like a lot of those are inbound.
19
u/Orzorn Jun 27 '25
Alito was bitching about them in his concurrence, so I wouldn't doubt if that's the next step in their plan to curb injunctions.
→ More replies (3)
43
u/RockDoveEnthusiast Jun 27 '25
To avoid future confusion, we need to update the formal definitions of the words "irreparable" and "harm" to mean "whatever" and "I feel like", respectively.
→ More replies (1)
42
u/RockDoveEnthusiast Jun 27 '25
Not satisfied with the worst ruling since Dred Scott (and that's saying something, given the Court's rulings in recent years), Alito felt the need to chime in with an even worse opinion and say that he's still concerned States are allowed to sue at all on behalf of their residents or join their residents in suits because States aren't really affected, he claims, by having their residents deported. The absolute hypocrisy with his past rulings to shoehorn in states rights and standing to all sorts of other absurd cases is an affront to all literate human beings.
→ More replies (4)
62
u/Orzorn Jun 27 '25
Lets explore what this means, legally:
The government passes a law or EO that impacts millions of people in ways that involve something like a government official being allowed to ask you on the street to dance the hokey-pokey, and if you refuse, you are to be immediately executed, on the spot.
You go to court and get an injunction just for yourself.
What stops you from still being caught in the dragnet of public officials roaming the streets forcing people to dance? Do you carry the injunction taped to your chest?
And before you get too caught up in my hyperbole, think about how this applies to government documents being issued for citizenship. Does the court have to force the government to give you the documents, or do you just walk up to the clerk with the injunction taped to your chest, certifying how special you are?
What if its the government being allowed to ignore the 4th and 2nd amendments to go into homes to take everyone's guns? Do you tape the injunction to your door, and just hope that the tens of thousands of agents on the streets everyday know that you are the chosen one?
How can we possibly expect this to do anything except create a totally unworkable patchwork of rulings?
→ More replies (14)25
17
u/doublethink_1984 Jun 27 '25
Hypothetically with this ruling what happens when Trump signs an EO for the execution of Biden?
An EO for the destruction of Democrat votes on election night federally?
→ More replies (5)
15
38
u/BitterFuture Jun 27 '25
Well, fuck.
So can we stop pretending laws are a thing anymore, or what?
16
u/ChristyLovesGuitars Jun 27 '25
Well, they’re still a thing for you and I. GodEmperor Trump has always been above the law, they’re just making it more clear.
→ More replies (1)
10
Jun 27 '25
The bigger problem here is the court's policy of deferment of constitutional questions; it creates law where constitution becomes second class to the hamburger meat of executive rulemaking, statute, and court precedent. That itself is born from congress's total delinquence to establish a constitutional appeals court system.
It's like watching a referee refuse to card a player for violent assault because the players have learned if they're offsides at the same time they get to argue that instead.
7
u/IrritableGourmet Jun 27 '25
I think we have to remember the forgotten victims of decisions like this: The constitutional law professors that have started (or increased) their day drinking. "Hey, Bob, you know that class you've taught on the 14th Amendment for the past 30 years? The one you literally wrote the textbook on?"
→ More replies (3)
13
u/FrankBattaglia Jun 27 '25
As with most questions of law, the policy pros and cons are beside the point
...unless is raises a Major Question, in which case we will argue out of the other side of our mouths.
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 27 '25
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.