(1) federal supremacy / supremacy clause we hardly knew ye (2) id bet that, once Trump takes office, these federal courts will all of a sudden rediscover that federal power, and executive power, over immigration is quite expansive! - ThreadSky

leahlitman.bsky.social • 88 days ago

(1) federal supremacy / supremacy clause we hardly knew ye

(2) id bet that, once Trump takes office, these federal courts will all of a sudden rediscover that federal power, and executive power, over immigration is quite expansive!

Reposted from Chris Geidner

BREAKING: The Fifth Circuit issues a limited injunction against the United States in Texas’s lawsuit seeking to prevent the Feds from cutting down fencing Texas has put up in an area along the border.

Duncan writes, and Willett joins; Ramirez dissents: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

Comments

ericasco.bsky.social•87 days ago

We can safely say at this point that the only individual rights the current SCOTUS will uphold are 2A "All The Guns!" and 1A "Christianity gets to do whatever it wants" ? And everything else is just "be nice to corporations and oligarchs"?

goterrands.bsky.social•78 days ago

Mass deportation and "DOGE" initiatives raise huge constitutional issues and will almost certainly require unilateral action from the executive branch.

They also will almost surely be litigated before SCOTUS.

When it happens, it'll be fun watching SCOTUS "shake off" the Major Questions Doctrine.

finintheland.bsky.social•87 days ago

Major Questions Doctrine will be put on the shelf come January as well.

ronels.bsky.social•87 days ago

A SCOTUS of selective memory and consistent lack of historical research

leahlitman.bsky.social•88 days ago

And the fact that Trump takes office in January means the Court might not act on this - anticipating the Trump admin may change the federal governments position

zedemmonk.bsky.social•87 days ago

This is all in accordance to the new Supreme Court principle that has replaced “Stare Decisis” - “Quia Dixi Ita”

joshuaaengel.com•87 days ago

The most frustrating thing for civil rights litigators is that at the same time the Federal Courts are taking an expansive view of State’s rights in opposing some federal policies, the same courts are basically abdicating their traditional role in safeguarding individual rights

crary.bsky.social•88 days ago

This was my initial thought. Just a little brief unconstitutionality from a ridiculously rogue circuit.

rismith.bsky.social•88 days ago

But wasn't it funny when Willett's Twitter account had a picture of a judge doing the yeehaw pose on the Twitter bird like he was Colonel Kilgore in Dr. Strangelove?

edumblue.bsky.social•88 days ago

Yes, the Constitution gives the Executive Branch significant discretion to control immigration, restrict reproductive rights, and immunity for committing crimes, but not forgive student loans.

tumescentnumpty.bsky.social•88 days ago

What's the line for how far back Robert's is gonna have to reach to find that, no, achshually the precedent doesn't apply this time it's only coincidence this only happens to the benefit of Republicans pay no attention to the man behind the curtain?

1212?

steadyhabits.bsky.social•88 days ago

yes the federal courts seesaw of federal power during a republican admin and federal power during a democratic admin is quite the curious (corrupt) case.

segalmr.bsky.social•87 days ago

Turns out if the state of Maryland had just put up razor wire around the Second Bank of the United States, instead of taxing it, that would have been okay!

tennis6060.bsky.social•83 days ago

Yes, things will amazingly get a different narrative come Jan 20.

dave-duggins.bsky.social•87 days ago

My wife, who is an attorney, told me to trust the judiciary. they believe in law, not people. The reddest of red state Senators is an ex-law jock. They will roadblock this fringe crap. They don’t want to end Democracy.

ericasco.bsky.social•87 days ago

I'm not sure about this. Take the "major questions doctrine" the current SCOTUS majority made up, and they also decided that actual legislation wasn't one of those "checks and balances" on the Executive branch.

dave-duggins.bsky.social•87 days ago

I’ll ask her about that. Thank you.

dave-duggins.bsky.social•87 days ago

I looked it up and as I remember that was more about, forgive my bluntness, giving up our wetlands so some billionaire can have customized beachfront acreage. More about “EPA overreach.” What’s the application here? Not meaning it argumentatively. I fully believe it could be worse than that.

ericasco.bsky.social•87 days ago

The law seems particularly malleable for the current SCOTUS to achieve what seem to be a few major aims: a) unitary executive power, b) deregulation, c) rollback of civil liberties for any non-White/non-Christian folks under the auspices of destroying substantive due process protections.

ericasco.bsky.social•87 days ago

So, in this case, they would overturn Federal sovereignty in favor of the state's right to harm immigrants. But, if a conservative administration wanted to punish sanctuary cities/states, for example, they would find a way for the Federal edicts to trump states'/localities' rights.

kleinline.bsky.social•83 days ago

Some have integrity, but others are plants.

Look at Judge Luttig... conservative doesn't have to mean crazy or traitorous.

amtappeals.bsky.social•87 days ago

I guess a movement judge with a popular Twitter account is still a movement judge.

barrelledinsd.bsky.social•87 days ago

5th circuit is so blatantly a political body.

rosebanditquinn.bsky.social•88 days ago

Because the Feds will fall in line with the Ken Paxtons and Andrew Baileys and what they want. To surveil the population and restrict their activities.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply