mastodontech.de ist einer von vielen unabhängigen Mastodon-Servern, mit dem du dich im Fediverse beteiligen kannst.
Offen für alle (über 16) und bereitgestellt von Markus'Blog

Serverstatistik:

1,5 Tsd.
aktive Profile

#injunctions

1 Beitrag1 Beteiligte*r0 Beiträge heute

Review of #SupremeCourt 2024-25 Term
Legal commentators working in the #media and #academia reviewed the Supreme Court's 2024-25 term. They discussed outcomes from some key cases, including the Supreme Court upholding Tennessee's law banning #transgender medical treatments for minors, allowing states to cut #Medicaid funding from Planned Parenthood, and limiting district courts' use of nationwide #injunctions.

#cspan #video #transcript

c-span.org/program/public-affa

C-SPAN · Review of Supreme Court 2024-25 TermVon C-SPAN

The MAGA era
— and the three latest Trump appointees to the Court
— has resulted in a new, gruesome project:
❌giving Trump whatever he wants.

🔥This toxic combination of bigotry and fealty has created a Court that uses all its might to attack the less powerful
while coddling those who already have it all — particularly Donald Trump.

It’s a Court with a very clear vision of who matters and who needs protection.

The majority opinion in "Trump v. CASA", the birthright citizenship case,
was honestly inevitable,
a culmination of all the ways in which the conservative justices have warped the Court in order to serve Trump.

Indeed, the Court’s previous term will go down in infamy as the one in which they gave Trump permission to do whatever he wants
by inventing sweeping #presidential #immunity.

One year later, Trump needed his reliable pals on the Supreme Court to step in on the #birthright #citizenship case
because four federal district courts and three federal appeals courts had enjoined him from implementing his executive order eliminating birthright citizenship.

That shouldn’t be a surprise, or even remotely controversial.

There’s simply no world where an executive order can undo the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship
-- and since the order was so obviously unconstitutional, the lower courts issued universal, or #nationwide, #injunctions to block the policy.

Those nationwide injunctions stopped Trump from stripping citizenship from babies,
even in states that were eager to let him do so.

Twenty conservative states filed an amicus brief urging the Court to let Trump’s executive order go into effect.

But the conservatives on the Court couldn't face grappling with whether Trump’s executive order was unconstitutional.

Indeed, they very much want you to know that the administration’s requests did not ask the Court to rule on the birthright citizenship issue at all. Heavens, no.

This is just about whether lower courts can issue universal, or nationwide, injunctions.

This is, to put it charitably,
⭐️a self-serving lie,
a way for the conservatives to soothe themselves,
to pretend they aren’t responsible for Trump turning the immense machinery of his immigration crackdown on literal babies.

No, all they did was strip the lower courts of the ability to issue universal injunctions.

Of course, once those injunctions are narrowed,
the administration is free to proceed on its plans to deprive babies of citizenship anywhere the narrower injunctions don’t apply
publicnotice.co/p/trump-casa-s

Public Notice · A corrupted Supreme Court sinks to new lowsVon Lisa Needham

Interesting informed commentary on Trump v CASA. (Source withheld, and further paraphrased here, because it was posted privately but its key point bears repeating.)

Much has been reported on this decision as supposedly greenlighting the effective end of
#birthright #citizenship by blocking the #nationwide #injunctions and forcing each separate person harmed to individually sue. But critically, that's not actually what the decision said.

Paraphrased and distilled, what the majority opinion said is that the birthright citizenship question is not ripe for SCOTUS review yet, but the nationwide injunctions are problematic
because the lower courts failed to properly document exhaustive examination of possible lesser remedies and how they all fail to deliver complete relief. The Supreme Court therefore remanded the case back to the lower courts and gave them 30 days to complete that full documentation of examination, in order to rigorously show that a nationwide injunction is actually necessary. "This is the big gun; if you're going to use it, you need to meticulously dot every i and cross every t in your explanation of why you pulled it out, and you didn't."

Of particular note, Amy Coney Barrett essentially said, "Look, we agree that this is
absolutely necessary, but you need to document that properly and show your work. Come back when you've done that, and the Court will be on your side."

The majority, however slim, on the Supreme Court are not opposed to the invocation of nationwide injunctions to protect birthright citizenship. What the Court objected to was
failing to properly show the necessity of those nationwide injunctions. It's an important distinction.

«Less than 3 hours aftr the #MAGA #SupremeCourt ruled 6-3 that no fed judge has power 2 almost ever issue nationwide #injunctions in context of #BirthrightCitizenship attack by #Trump, the plaintiffs counsel filed new motion for temporary injunction & to certify a class 2 get the #birthright citizenship issue back up 2 #SCOTUS as fast as humanly possible. Popok explains how this is exactly what #Sotomayor & even #Kavanaugh told them 2 do in their separate opinions»

youtu.be/uJrKE066A9Q?si=sGTt2O

With an assist from @lawdorknews.bsky.social, I have updated my post from Wednesday about challenges to Russel Vought’s attempt to dismiss up to 90% of the CFPB’s employees. D.C. Circuit upholds the District Court’s stay on the action, with former White House counsel during Trump 1.0 joining the majority.

#law #contracts #CFPB #litigation #injunctions #DCCircuit

lawprofessors.typepad.com/cont

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has survived the first 100 days of the new Administration’s term with the help of Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who sees the latest RIF (correctly) as an attempt to prevent the CFPB from performing its statutorily-mandated functions

#law #contracts #CFPB #litigation #GovernmentEmployees #Injunctions

lawprofessors.typepad.com/cont

Courts grant injunctions against Biden’s student loan repayment plan

The future of President #Biden’s new #StudentLoan repayment plan is in doubt after a pair of federal judges issued separate #injunctions Mon preventing the govt from fully implementing & forgiving any more loans through the program while they consider lawsuits to end the #policy.

#law #StudentLoanForgiveness #StudentDebt #SAVE #debt #poverty
washingtonpost.com/education/2

The Washington Post · Courts grant injunctions against Biden’s student loan repayment planVon Danielle Douglas-Gabriel

I remember walking along a street on an #Extinction #Rebellion #march in 2019 and people were cheering from their windows.
A big part of all the early protests was #outreach, with protesters talking to people on the streets, in communities and workplaces, and finding eager responses.

This hopeful sense of #engagement is hard to find now.
Its disappearance is often blamed on the protesters themselves.
Aren’t they too disruptive?
Too white? Too young? Too old?
Too disconnected from politics? Too political?

You can put the blame with them, and, for sure, protesters make mistakes,
but you also have to recognise the impact of the #backlash.

Because where many of us saw great hope for change, others saw only a #threat.
And because they saw only a threat, they acted quickly to undermine and marginalise it.

The legal response to protest in the UK has been transformed at an astonishing pace.

Actions have been newly #criminalised;
locking on, carrying glue to protests, walking slowly in the road.

The growth in the use of #private #injunctions has enabled corporations to impose #crippling #fines for, say, blocking certain roads or sitting down at oil terminals.

Existing crimes have been escalated, so that what once might have attracted a small fine,
such as sitting down in a road,
can now lead quickly to #prison.

Defences are being stripped away; 🌟some protesters have been told by judges that they may not even mention the climate emergency in court, 🌟
and are imprisoned if they do so.

Long custodial sentences are becoming normalised.

While many people are happily going along with this repression, thinking that it’s necessary to stop disruption,
or that it only affects a few extremists,
the direction of travel is fast and frightening and its repercussions are growing.

@Natasha_Walter

theguardian.com/commentisfree/

The Guardian · Jail for holding a placard? Protest over the climate crisis is being brutally suppressedVon Natasha Walter