The Court was asked to weigh injunctions. Instead, it wrestled with the meaning of citizenship and who has the power to define it. The answer looks... promising?
Why depopulate America? While I have seen a few instances of “birthright tourism” the number is exceedingly small. Two of my relatives did this back during WW II. I don’t see why we are having such a big fuss.
The powers that be, the hidden corporate kings, want to remove people from the US at their will. This is part of their process. Hopefully this court will not cooperate. Ultimately force will prevail over law, but we're not there yet.
Is it true that the Court could have decided Trump v. Barbara on the issue of nationwide injunctions? I thought that issue was decided separately last year in Trump v. Casa, and this litigation was brought as a class action, which is why the case needed to be resolved on the constitutional (or statutory) question. Is that right?
Casa didn't eliminate nationwide injunctions entirely, but it did narrow them significantly. In general, the ruling said they should be rare, and the court would need to justify why a narrower injunction isn't adequate. Since Casa, they have been more susceptible to appeal and scrutiny.
However, in the case of birthright citizenship, it is hard to argue that a narrower block would be enough, and that the harm is minor or specific. In this case, citizenship at birth is binary: you either are or are not, and the impact of not being a citizen begins from that moment. It affects so many aspects of life, and not in ways that can be retroactively corrected to remove the harm.
In theory, a decision in Barbara regarding nationwide injunctions could extend Casa's ruling to set a precedent that rights (citizenship, etc.) are subject to nationwide injunction because the impacts are broad and the harm is "indivisible."
My question was how the court could even rule on those grounds in Trump v. Barbara. The case began as a class action, not as an individual suit with a universal injunction. So how could the court, even if it thought this was a more appropriate case for it than others, rule on the question of nationwide injunctions in Trump v. Barbara if that was not the posture of the case?
First of all, what an insightful question. I did some digging. From what I can find, yes, the scope of relief was part of the government’s appeal. That gives the Supreme Court a legitimate basis to address the scope of broad injunctions. However, because this case isn’t a pure nationwide-injunction case, using it to announce sweeping limits on that doctrine is still open to criticism, and as we noted in the article, it doesn't appear that they will be issuing a decision that addresses injunctions.
Why depopulate America? While I have seen a few instances of “birthright tourism” the number is exceedingly small. Two of my relatives did this back during WW II. I don’t see why we are having such a big fuss.
The powers that be, the hidden corporate kings, want to remove people from the US at their will. This is part of their process. Hopefully this court will not cooperate. Ultimately force will prevail over law, but we're not there yet.
Is it true that the Court could have decided Trump v. Barbara on the issue of nationwide injunctions? I thought that issue was decided separately last year in Trump v. Casa, and this litigation was brought as a class action, which is why the case needed to be resolved on the constitutional (or statutory) question. Is that right?
Yes and no.
Casa didn't eliminate nationwide injunctions entirely, but it did narrow them significantly. In general, the ruling said they should be rare, and the court would need to justify why a narrower injunction isn't adequate. Since Casa, they have been more susceptible to appeal and scrutiny.
However, in the case of birthright citizenship, it is hard to argue that a narrower block would be enough, and that the harm is minor or specific. In this case, citizenship at birth is binary: you either are or are not, and the impact of not being a citizen begins from that moment. It affects so many aspects of life, and not in ways that can be retroactively corrected to remove the harm.
In theory, a decision in Barbara regarding nationwide injunctions could extend Casa's ruling to set a precedent that rights (citizenship, etc.) are subject to nationwide injunction because the impacts are broad and the harm is "indivisible."
My question was how the court could even rule on those grounds in Trump v. Barbara. The case began as a class action, not as an individual suit with a universal injunction. So how could the court, even if it thought this was a more appropriate case for it than others, rule on the question of nationwide injunctions in Trump v. Barbara if that was not the posture of the case?
First of all, what an insightful question. I did some digging. From what I can find, yes, the scope of relief was part of the government’s appeal. That gives the Supreme Court a legitimate basis to address the scope of broad injunctions. However, because this case isn’t a pure nationwide-injunction case, using it to announce sweeping limits on that doctrine is still open to criticism, and as we noted in the article, it doesn't appear that they will be issuing a decision that addresses injunctions.