SCOTUS only took a day to slam a district judge

By oldedude

July 3, 2025 7:23 pm

Category: Law

(0.0 from 0 votes)

As much as MSN was doing the little Snowflake happy dance when a Federal DISTRICT Judge ruled on a law that affects THE ENTIRE NATION.

I know, we already talked about this ad nauseum. SCOTUS was very clear about this. It is ILLEGAL for a district to make law for another district. That is actually in the Constitution. So maybe the federal judge (appointed by obomber) should be "relieved of his duties" if he doesn't understand the basics of constitutional law and the part he plays in our nation?

In a 7-2 decision (which means at least one liberal judge agreed), the Supreme Court agreed Thursday that Murphy violated its order, noting the “only authority” he cited was the dissent.

“Our June 23 order stayed the April 18 preliminary injunction in full,” the majority held. “The May 21 remedial order cannot now be used to enforce an injunction that our stay rendered unenforceable.” It was Justice Kagan, who dissented from the original decision, agreed the lower court could not continue to block the deportations. And honestly, when Kagan slaps your peepee, you'd better pay attention.

It seems to me, that the constitution doesn't need to be rewritten, it needs to be READ. You can't just make shit up to please yourself. I understand the anarchists really don't believe in laws, so they don't respect laws and are so narcissistic they believe they are the "law." I don't like all laws (who does, right?). And yet I don't intentionally violate them. And I don't think many here do.

So this was about A district court judge’s bid to circumvent an order allowing the Trump administration to resume third-country deportations. These were settled on June 23rd (WTFO?). And then judge Brian Murphy claimed hours later that one of his orders preventing the deportation of eight migrants to South Sudan remained in effect. It just seems to me this guy was paid off...

Cited and related links:

Comments Start Below

The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of SelectSmart.com.

Comments on "SCOTUS only took a day to slam a district judge"

by Indy! on July 3, 2025 8:56 pm
"Paid off" like Clarence "Show Me the Money" Thomas or Brett "Thanks for Paying Off My Ridiculous Mortgage" Kavanaugh?

~~~
by oldedude on July 3, 2025 9:07 pm
dude. just fucking face it. You were handed your ass. Please don't be a little bitch about it.

~~~
by HatetheSwamp on July 4, 2025 3:15 pm

Lawfare is now toothless. 7-2, baby!

~~~
by meagain on July 4, 2025 6:50 pm
Where in the Constitution does it say that? The SC once again twisted it. Of course the decision of the Court could be applied to the whole nation. It was a decision about the Constitution. The purpose of the SC is to consider the verdict and its constitutional application. Not to rule that it can't.

So the lower court ruling should remain in effect until the SC affirms or denies the ruling on its constitutionality.

~~~
by oldedude on July 4, 2025 7:47 pm
It's part of the sequential progression of the law in our country. Live with it. AS WEVE'D DISCUSSED BEFORE. A District is limited to just that THEIR DISTRICT. They can rule on their own district. for them to rule on a federal "system" or decision? Not in their purview. They have no jurisdiction outside their own district. Period. End of story.

Again, what you refuse to understand is that we actually have different laws. YOU are common-law. WE ARE NOT. End of story. You are still owned by a queen, which isn't much different than an British "king" in the past millennium. Charles is a reprobate. Everyone knows that. My point is that you don't need to fight that. It's just true and that's a great starting point for the monarchy. You can either fight that, or I'll expose to you, all the incest and illegal your system has gone through. I'm game for either. And honestly, it doesn't matter two shits to me. What DOES matter is your (and every other british subject) how "close your are to the fucking "crown." It doesn't matter to Americans. Americans just consider you an "elitist" "prig."

~~~
by oldedude on July 4, 2025 8:08 pm
I find it funny that someone that isn't even a citizen of our cuntry believes It's a "Source of doctrine" of US Law. With zero experience. It always cites British common law to satisfy US law. Which is bullshit. Just like in any other nation, they MUST cite the host country's laws to win a case. Obviously, wrongaggain, has never "won" a case.

~~~
by HatetheSwamp on July 5, 2025 3:39 am

Bang on, OD.

And, meagain the CONSTITUTION is clear that Congress defines the role of "inferior courts."

~~~
by meagain on July 5, 2025 3:01 pm
"And, meagain the CONSTITUTION is clear that Congress defines the role of "inferior courts.""

Read your Constitution; the definition is no different than in any Common Law country. As America is, despite OD's stubborn refusal to believe the incontrovertible fact.

An inferior court's rulings apply to law, not to area. They can only be overturned on appeal to a higher court. That is a fundamental principle. If it does not apply in America, then America is not a nation. The reality is a corrupt Supreme Court that does not accept legal principles that override the political bias.

~~~
by islander on July 5, 2025 3:55 pm

You are correct, meagain...Article III of the Constitution...

~~~
by oldedude on July 5, 2025 6:34 pm
Sorry, the answer to that is "NO" Federal district courts (the inferior court system) can only rule in their districts aligned with the congressional districts as the congress has set up. That's the exceptions clause of Article III.S1.8.4- Establishment of Inferior Federal Courts.

congress.gov
law.justia.com
congress.gov
constitution.congress.gov

~~~
by meagain on July 5, 2025 7:13 pm
Read the Constitutional provision. It is a fundamental principle in all national legal systems. I don't know what your references are about, but it is clear.

As I said, you would not be a nation if it were not.

~~~
by oldedude on July 5, 2025 7:29 pm
wrongagain. Experts disagree with you. You really should read the constitution instead of just assuming you know all about it. AND I cited, which you could not. I even cited the paragraph that you did not. My point is that according to OUR congressional reading, SCOTUS decision (Twice), and references used by Cornell Law school, etc, you're wrong.

Yes, this is one of those times when you believe you know more than the scholars. Something you denied doing earlier (that was about arguing with Cornell Law School).

~~~
by Indy! on July 5, 2025 7:32 pm

How was I handed my ass, queenie? I wasn't involved in the case in any way.

~~~
by oldedude on July 5, 2025 7:33 pm
Your drugs are kicking in again. I didn't mention you at all. Like you said, you weren't part of that conversation. So I have no idea WTF you're talking about.

~~~
by Indy! on July 5, 2025 7:42 pm

Good move. queenie - pretend like you never said it.

Now, if only you could somehow make the internet disappear. 🤔

~~~
by oldedude on July 6, 2025 4:42 am
You only diverted. Which is your way of not knowing what you're talking about. And don't have the facts to back up your hatred towards everyone and everything.

~~~
by islander on July 6, 2025 4:42 am

Lower circuit court civil suit judgments are only applicable to specific districts or states in civil lawsuits between private parties. For instance, if a federal district court ruled in a class-action suit against the government, such as an injunction against Trump’s revocation of birthright citizenship, this injunction would apply nationwide since it’s a constitutional question. It wouldn’t be limited to the individuals involved in the suit. The government could, if it chose, then appeal the ruling to an appeals court all the way to the Supreme Court.

~~~
by HatetheSwamp on July 6, 2025 5:00 am

isle,

That's the way of the future, though, as I understand it, it remains to be seen how easily a "class" can be formed. From what I'm hearing from right-wing media, appeals will begin over the legitimacy of the class. The bringing of a class action may be fraught will peril.

Of course, ole pb ain't po and he doesn't teach at an Ivy League law school.

~~~
by islander on July 6, 2025 5:36 am

That’s exactly what the Trump and his enablers are going to try to do and most of us know why. But that’s not the same as saying that a lower court ruling cannot apply nation wide.

~~~
by HatetheSwamp on July 6, 2025 6:00 am

Ole pb NEVER said that.

But, he knows that a significant difference between Trump 2.0 compared to the first dance is Trump Chief of staff, Susie Wiles. He crazy like a Fox. It's gunna be a fun next 3 1/2 years for ole. Y'nes have got your hands full.

~~~
by oldedude on July 6, 2025 6:17 am
Isle. In your illustration. EVEN if is a "constitutional" question. The Federal District Court in that congressional district has the power to rule IN THEIR DISTRICT.

This is why, generally, there are multiple district court decisions being seen in different districts all at once. That way, there's more juice when they kick the ruling up to SCOTUS. This is happening a lot with gun laws, parental rights in schools, etc. What has been shot down twice, is a federal district judge that "says" their ruling applies to the to all districts in the nation. That's the exceptions clause of Article III.S1.8.4- Establishment of Inferior Federal Courts.

meagain- So the lower court ruling should remain in effect until the SC affirms or denies the ruling on its constitutionality.

Yes, that is the usual course, unless there's a stay. Many times, The superior will rule on a request the loser in the case. So someone will ask for a stay (no change until the superior court rules). Both sides will give their reasons for or against, and the court responds. Generally, the stay may be a "temporary Stay (Reasonable time) or there will be a date to have it revisited.

~~~
by islander on July 6, 2025 6:17 am

You never said what?

~~~
by islander on July 6, 2025 6:34 am

Yes, of course, od, the Federal District Court in that congressional district has the power to rule IN THEIR DISTRICT...We're not arguing that they don't

Tell me, od, what do YOU think we are arguing about?

~~~
by HatetheSwamp on July 6, 2025 6:35 am

READ YOUR POST THAT IMMEDIATELY PRECEDES THAT COMMENT. Sheeeeeeeeeeeesh, man!

~~~
by islander on July 6, 2025 8:21 am

"You never said what?" was a cryptic question to you, Hate.

~~~
by oldedude on July 6, 2025 8:38 am
wrongagain: Where in the Constitution does it say that? The SC once again twisted it. Of course the decision of the Court could be applied to the whole nation. It was a decision about the Constitution. The purpose of the SC is to consider the verdict and its constitutional application. Not to rule that it can't.

wrongagain is arguing that a federal district court can apply their decision automatically to apply the decision to the rest of the country Federal law or the constitution. even outside of their district.

Earlier, curt also said that meagain was correct, as did navy.

princess doesn't understand law, so it's just spewing.

You, Lead and I are saying that a federal district judge can rule in their district, and no more than that. Can it move up to the court? absolutely.

~~~
by HatetheSwamp on July 6, 2025 8:41 am

Exactly, OD. Congress has the authority to change that, if it wants. Checks and balances, baby!

~~~
by oldedude on July 6, 2025 9:05 am
Which they have, many times. Sometimes wholesale changes.

~~~
by islander on July 6, 2025 11:39 am

Lower courts, both state and federal, have always had the authority to rule on violations of the Constitution. While the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of constitutional law, lower courts interpret and apply the Constitution in the cases they hear.

The Trump administration is attempting to circumvent this by using the universal law ploy. Their plan specifically aims to eliminate the authority and responsibility of state and federal courts to issue injunctions against executive orders that violate the Constitution. The rulings from the Supreme Court, the highest appellate court, virtually all but a rare few, stem from appeals made by lower courts. If a lower court rules that a defendant violated the constitutional rights of someone, it means that committing the same crime would be a criminal offense regardless of the location.

~~~
by HatetheSwamp on July 6, 2025 11:43 am

"Their plan specifically aims to eliminate the authority and responsibility of state and federal courts to issue injunctions against executive orders that violate the Constitution."

Just so you know, isle, your tin foil hat is askew.

~~~
by oldedude on July 6, 2025 2:26 pm
Isle= here's where you and the law differ.
"Lower courts, both state and federal, have always had the authority to rule on violations of the Constitution." So far, we agree. The difference is that you believe their "ruling" applies to the nation automatically. Which it doesn't. It applies to their district alone. In those certain circumstances. AND for it to become a federal law. The decision does have judicial precedence, but not the higher court's authority.

~~~
by islander on July 6, 2025 4:15 pm

Judges, including Supreme Court judges, don’t create laws. The legislative branch is responsible for making laws. If a judge finds a person guilty of a crime that, in their interpretation, violates the victim’s constitutional right, the judge is not making a law but rather determining that the person has broken an existing law. If that act indeed violates the victim’s constitutional right, it would be a crime in any part of the country. However, if it were a crime only in the judge’s district, it might not be considered a crime in another district or state.

~~~
by Donna on July 6, 2025 4:32 pm

It's my understanding that the SC's ruling on lower courts issuing nationwide injunctions only pertained to cases pettainkng to individial parties. However, the ruling didn't disallow class action suits resulting in nationwide injunctions.

~~~
by Donna on July 6, 2025 4:40 pm

I see now that islsnder already brought that up.

Btw, Donald and Ivania's three children wouldn't have automatically been considered US citizens if birthright citizenship weren't guaranteed by our constitution.

~~~
by oldedude on July 6, 2025 5:23 pm
Isle, not sure what that was all about. It's one of those sixth-grade civic lesson. That one about three equal and distinct branches of government stuff. In this case, SCOTUS called the judge on over-reach because thought himself able to change a federal law by telling everyone that he was a district judge and therefore, it has to affect the whole nation. Which is not even close to the truth. The state then asked for a reading from SCOTUS, which was won. The inferior (district) court insisted it didn't matter and insisted that to SCOTUS and instead of getting the 6-3 decision against him, it was a 7-2 decision against him. SCOTUS was also clear they didn't want to anything more of this.

~~~
by islander on July 7, 2025 4:50 am

Od, I don’t think what I wrote was all that complex. You might want to read it again and tell what I said, not what you might think I said, that was incorrect. An executive order is not the same thing as a federal law, you are wrong there. You are however correct in agreeing that there are three branches of government. Congress is the Legislative branch meaning they enact the laws, the president is head of the Executive branch, they execute (enforce) the laws passed by congress. The Judicial branch determines whether a law has been broken and/or the Supreme Court can determine whether or not the laws, and they can strike it down. An executive order is an order that has force within the executive branch like I said, it’s not a federal law.

You said, “the judge thought himself able to change a federal law.” Now maybe you can see why that is not correct. If a president issues an illegal executive order such as stripping away the citizenship of a natural-born American, that order violates the Constitution. If the president issues an executive order to ignore habeas corpus and take away a person’s constitutional right to due process, that would be a violation of the Constitution. It is absolutely essential that a judge be able to issue an injunction in cases like this, that is, temporarily halting the execution of the order, in which case the plaintiffs can appeal the judge’s ruling and an appellate court can determine if the judge’s ruling is correct. The Republicans are trying to falsely claim that such an injunction by a district judge is making a new law or changing a federal law that extends to the entire nation.

~~~
by HatetheSwamp on July 7, 2025 6:01 am

"Btw, Donald and Ivania's three children wouldn't have automatically been considered US citizens if birthright citizenship weren't guaranteed by our constitution."

Donna, Why?

~~~
by HatetheSwamp on July 7, 2025 6:14 am

"Congress is the Legislative branch meaning they enact the laws, the president is head of the Executive branch."

A small point. As I understand it, Congress creates laws, the Executive Branch, EXECUTES laws created by Congress.

An essential doctrine of the current Supreme Court stresses that Executive Branch bureaucracy can't exceed the authority Congress grants to the Executive Branch. I'm not po. I don't teach at an Ivy League law school. But, for example...

"West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, 597 U.S. 697 (2022), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court relating to the Clean Air Act, and the extent to which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can regulate carbon dioxide emissions related to climate change."

In the same way, District Court Judges can't exceed the authority granted to them by Congress.

en.m.wikipedia.org

~~~
by oldedude on July 7, 2025 6:24 am
So lets take this down. I'm not sure if you understand this is my Bachelors Degree in constitutional. Most (if not all) of the things you disagree with are making the same argument I was. You're just reading it wrong. I put quotes from you in Italics.

I think you're really misreading what I said. Everything in the first paragraph is what I said. There HAVE been district judges that have "ruled" on an EO. No, it isn't a law, which is why trumpster in his first administration wanted CONGRESS to rule on DACA, and put ACTUAL LAWS in place.

Second paragraph. You said, “the judge thought himself able to change a federal law.” That should tell you that the judge cannot. If "he thought himself able" I agree. He can't.

If a president issues an illegal executive order such as stripping away the citizenship of a natural-born American, that order violates the Constitution. If the president issues an executive order to ignore habeas corpus and take away a person’s constitutional right to due process, that would be a violation of the Constitution. True, and in this case, it is not up to the inferior (district) court because a district court can only rule on their districts. This is up to SCOTUS alone. Examples, three times, pedojoe wanted to pay for student loans. Because of the separation of powers, we require CONGRESS to spend that money. The EO was found to violate the constitution three times in a row.

Regarding the rights to due process. We do have one set of laws for criminal charges. We have a separate set of "due process" for immigration status, since that is NOT criminal. It's under civil action of the Federal government. That's what the hubbub was all about. People that don't understand immigration law, "ASSumed" immigration law was under the 18 code (criminal). Which it isn't. That's why the judge got his junk slapped. Twice.

The Republicans are trying to falsely claim that such an injunction by a district judge is making a new law or changing a federal law that extends to the entire nation.
I adamantly disagree with that statement. The dems are making the incorrect case that a federal district can rule outside of their district. They can't. Simply put. In order for it to be valid in other districts, it MUST either be accepted by every other district, OR (which is the usual case) be appealed to SCOTUS. This is the issue with the immigration the lower court made. AND again, SCOTUS slapped his junk. Twice. And pretty much called him stupid.

~~~
by islander on July 7, 2025 8:34 am

OD, like I said, tell me what I said that you thing is incorrect, not what you think I said, for example, I’m not the one who said said, the judge thought himself able to change a federal law you said that in your previous post! I was quoting you to demonstrate that what you said was false.

And under the 14th amendment undocumented immigrants have the right to due process in our country. That means they are entitled to fair legal proceedings and cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without a fair hearing just like everyone else in our country. A government agency like ICE cannot take you or an undocumented immigrant and hold you without giving you the opportunity for a fair hearing. To do so would be a violation of the 14th Amendment. If you or an undocumented immigrant is found to have committed a crime you will be held accountable, but you must first be given the chance to explain why you think you are innocent. And the right to due process extends beyond criminal cases. Due process rights also apply in civil and administrative proceedings. The rights to due process ensure fair treatment and procedures in any government action that could deprive someone of life, liberty, or property. Due process is a fundamental principle of fairness in our legal system.

You say; ”it is not up to the inferior (district) court because a district court can only rule on their districts. This is up to SCOTUS alone.” That’s where your error is coming from. The Supreme Court is an appellate court which rules in cases brought before them almost always by a lower court. What you seem to be saying is that a district court cannot rule that a plaintiff’s action violates the constitution because a district judge does not have the authority and responsibility to rule on a defendant’s guilt or innocence of that crime. District Judges can and do make those rulings and always have. That’s how most such cases end up being brought before the Supreme Court ‘on appeal’. The Supreme Court is the highest appeals court and they have the final say in deciding whether the district judge made an error or was correct.

You also seem confused as to the difference between a Judge making a ruling on an existing federal law and creating a law and imposing it outside his or her district. The right to due process already IS an existing federal law that covers the entire nation. A district judge can rule whether or not a defendant broke that law. That is not imposing a law outside the judges district. The law is already in force outside his district. The Judge is only deciding whether the defendant broke the law. If the defendant thinks the judge made an error he or she can appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court. That’s how the legal system works in our country.

~~~
by Donna on July 7, 2025 9:20 am

We need a real legal scholar to referee.

~~~
by HatetheSwamp on July 7, 2025 9:28 am

We do.

I don't know nuthin about nuthin as far as these things are concerned. My Legal Goobers must all be on vacay.

~~~
by HatetheSwamp on July 7, 2025 9:46 am

Here's a brief video in which #s 2 and 3... and Shannon Bream, probably the best of the 3, comment.

View Video

~~~
by Donna on July 7, 2025 9:54 am

Got this from constitution.congress.gov:

Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Based on the first sentence of Section 1, the Court has held that a child born in the United States of Chinese parents who were ineligible to be naturalized themselves is nevertheless a citizen of the United States entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship.1 The requirement that a person be subject to the jurisdiction thereof, however, excludes its application to children born of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state, children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation,2 or children of members of Indian tribes subject to tribal laws.3 In addition, the citizenship of children born on vessels in United States territorial waters or on the high seas has generally been held by the lower courts to be determined by the citizenship of the parents.4 Citizens of the United States within the meaning of this Amendment must be natural and not artificial persons; a corporate body is not a citizen of the United States.5

constitution.congress.gov

~~~
by HatetheSwamp on July 7, 2025 10:08 am

This is based on a precedent waaaaaaay more than 100 years old. As I understand it, modern immigration law began to be written long after that 1898 Supreme Court decision.

We know that, depending on the issue, this Court is willing to overturn precedent.

I don't think it's a done deal that Trump will lose when the Supreme Court settles the issue but, were I to bet at even money, I'd bet that Trump loses.

~~~
by Donna on July 7, 2025 10:28 am

It seems to me that the 14th Amendment says that if a foreign national on vacation in the US gives birth here, and then returns to her country with that child, that child is still a US citizen, which to me seems weird.

~~~
by oldedude on July 7, 2025 10:34 am
isle- OD, like I said, tell me what I said that you thing is incorrect, not what you think I said, for example, I’m not the one who said said, the judge thought himself able to change a federal law you said that in your previous post!
Dude. Learn english. I said that THE JUDGE SAID... I disagree with that (had you read the next sentence). You're choosing and picking things to disagree on. Like I've said twice (this is thrice), I honestly don't think there's a disagreement. Unless you're just trying to troll me.

You say; ”it is not up to the inferior (district) court because a district court can only rule on their districts.
First, "what" is the thing that is not up to the inferior court,...
MY main point HAS ALWAYS JUST BEEN "the inferior court cannot make law for anything OUTSIDE OF THEIR DISTRICT. What can happen is for one side, to use the precedence (please learn that term), and if a different district disagrees, it then goes to the next common applet court.

The Supreme Court is an appellate court which rules in cases brought before them almost always by a lower court. What you seem to be saying is that a district court cannot rule that a plaintiff’s action violates the constitution because a district judge does not have the authority and responsibility to rule on a defendant’s guilt or innocence of that crime. District Judges can and do make those rulings and always have. That’s how most such cases end up being brought before the Supreme Court ‘on appeal’. The Supreme Court is the highest appeals court and they have the final say in deciding whether the district judge made an error or was correct.
I agree, and have (for the third time).

The Supreme Court is an appellate court which rules in cases brought before them almost always by a lower court. What you seem to be saying is that a district court cannot rule that a plaintiff’s action violates the constitution because a district judge does not have the authority and responsibility to rule on a defendant’s guilt or innocence of that crime. District Judges can and do make those rulings and always have. That’s how most such cases end up being brought before the Supreme Court ‘on appeal’. The Supreme Court is the highest appeals court and they have the final say in deciding whether the district judge made an error or was correct.

I AM VERY CLEAR. I don't think you are. And I truly believe you don't understand what this thread is about. You need to spin up on this before posting again.

This entire case is ONLY ABOUT THE INFERIOR JUDGE "ASSUMING" HIS READING OF THE LAW HELD FOR THE ENTIRE US. That's all. Nothing more than that. What he did, he did. I don't agree, but where his mistake was made was including every other federal judicial district in his decision. That is wrong. Period. SCOTUS said that TWICE. That is what the SCOTUS DECISION WAS ABOUT.

Everything else we've talked about has no bearing on this case. Period.

Italics

This is up to SCOTUS alone.” That’s where your error is coming from. The Supreme Court is an appellate court which rules in cases brought before them almost always by a lower court. What you seem to be saying is that a district court cannot rule that a plaintiff’s action violates the constitution because a district judge does not have the authority and responsibility to rule on a defendant’s guilt or innocence of that crime. District Judges can and do make those rulings and always have. That’s how most such cases end up being brought before the Supreme Court ‘on appeal’. The Supreme Court is the highest appeals court and they have the final say in deciding whether the district judge made an error or was correct.

~~~
by Indy! on July 7, 2025 10:43 am

What's up, Old Dude? 🙂

~~~
by meagain on July 7, 2025 12:41 pm

It might help to look at the dissenting decision. That way, we might know what the questions are. Here is a summary.

I don't see any point in the foolish argument about due process. Due process has only one meaning, and it applies equally to criminal and civil law. No distinction. Due process is the fundamental principle of the Rule of Law. That Rule means that the law applies to government as much as the people, and due process is the prohibition of arbitrary acts of government.

From AI, a summary.

"The dissenting justices, led by Justice Sotomayor, argued that the majority decision disregarded principles of equity and the long history of injunctive relief, particularly in cases where a presidential order is deemed unconstitutional. They also expressed concern that the ruling could undermine the rule of law and leave constitutional rights vulnerable.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
The Majority Decision:
The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 vote, ruled that lower courts cannot issue nationwide injunctions to block federal executive orders, limiting the scope of such injunctions to only those parties involved in the specific case.
The Dissenting Opinion:
Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissented, arguing that the majority decision was a departure from established legal principles.
Key Arguments in Dissent:
Constitutional Concerns: The dissent emphasized that the presidential order at the center of the case was likely unconstitutional, and the majority opinion failed to address this fundamental issue.
Equitable Principles: The dissenting justices argued that the majority decision disregarded established principles of equity and the long history of universal injunctions as appropriate remedies in cases where a law or policy is deemed unconstitutional.
Threat to the Rule of Law: Justice Jackson warned that the ruling poses an "existential threat to the rule of law," suggesting it could embolden future administrations to act unconstitutionally.
Hypothetical Concerns: Justice Sotomayor raised concerns that the ruling could leave constitutional rights unprotected, citing hypothetical examples of a future administration attempting to seize firearms or ban certain religions.
Impact of the Decision:
The decision is expected to make it more difficult for individuals and groups to challenge federal policies on a nationwide basis, potentially leading to a patchwork of legal interpretations across different jurisdictions.
Importance of the Dissent:
The dissenting justices' strong objections and the rare move by Justice Sotomayor to read her dissent from the bench underscored the gravity of their concerns about the impact of the ruling."

~~~
by HatetheSwamp on July 7, 2025 12:56 pm

"It might help to look at the dissenting decision. That way, we might know what the questions are."

That was a point in my #43.

~~~
by oldedude on July 7, 2025 1:01 pm
I'm not sure how the 14th Amendment came into this. Until it gets settled (which may not be far off) for a showdown, That part of the 14th amendment says what it says regarding citizenship. Section C is different, and I'm not arguing that either until SCOTUS decides on anything taken to them.

There is an issue about "due process" yetagain... So here's the Cliff Note. I am going to repeat myself. It's questionable if your buddy Kilmer actually had his "time in court," Okay, so since the left demanded that he be brought back, that makes him available for criminal charges. I say good on DOJ. I'm sure Kilmer isn't so happy, since when we turn him over to el Salvadore, they'll actually put him in the "Super Prison" for the rest of his (maybe) very short life.

Using the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia (remember him?) there was a weeks long discussion about him that apparently you missed. Facts of the case.
Kilmar Abrego Garcia was an illegal alien. who came in to the US illegally and was caught both times.
Kilmar Abrego Garcia is known to be a human trafficking agent of gangs for approximately 10 years according to his arrest warrant. He is suspected to be an MS13 member (which isn't a crime here, and it IS a deportable offense).

NOTE: I am using United States Code (U.S.C.). The U.S. Code is a collection of all the laws of the United States.
Title 8 of the U.S. Code covers "Aliens and Nationality." to cite all information for aliens and potential deportees, and deportation law. These are NOT criminal law, and in the case of aliens, are used in deportation cases only.
Criminal cases are subject to Title 18 U.S.C. Please don't confuse the two.

A government agency like ICE cannot take you or an undocumented immigrant and hold you without giving you the opportunity for a fair hearing.
According to Title 8, U.S.C., a person being deported will see two Immigration and deportation judges who review their charges, listen to the case from both the government and defence, and make a decision.

To do so would be a violation of the 14th Amendment. If you or an undocumented immigrant is found to have committed a crime you will be held accountable, but you must first be given the chance to explain why you think you are innocent.
See above.

And the right to due process extends beyond criminal cases. Due process rights also apply in civil and administrative proceedings.
This process has been under judicial review numerous times, with numerous SCOTUS members, and is now SCOTUS precedence as is writen. .

The rights to due process ensure fair treatment and procedures in any government action that could deprive someone of life, liberty, or property. Due process is a fundamental principle of fairness in our legal system.
Again, this IS the legal precedence for Title 8, U.S.C. legal process.

Honestly, you should have been watching when this was all going on. This time, I provided you with the Raw law (which admittedly is a little tough to go through, AND what Cornell Law School says about it. So if you think you're a better legal beagle, than Cornell Law School, go for it.
uscis.gov
law.cornell.edu

~~~
by islander on July 7, 2025 1:04 pm

OD, this is why I find your posts so jumbled and I sometimes struggle to understand your point. It was you, not me, who conceived the idea of the judge assuming or believing he could make or alter a law. Refer to your post #35, where you state, “In this case, SCOTUS called the judge on over-reach because [the judge] thought himself able to change a federal law by telling everyone that he was a district judge and therefore, it has to affect the whole nation. Which is not even close to the truth." What is not even close to the truth ?The reason SCOTUS called the judge on overreach? Or what you seem to assume the judge thought?

The judge never said, thought, or assumend any such a thing. He was performing his duty when he issued an injunction suspending Trump’s illegal executive order to revoke American citizenship from a group of natural born America citizens. Trump’s order violated the 14th Amendment, as it is written and has been interpreted. The injunction provided the Supreme Court with time to interpret the matter the way they see it.

It appears to me that you are confused by the Republican Party’s efforts to block the judge’s injunction. The judge’s actions were precisely what the courts are supposed to do, which is to serve as a check on the executive or legislative branch to prevent them from exceeding the boundaries of the law. This is one of the fundamental aspects of their authority and responsibilities.

Regrettably, from what seems clear to me, the Roberts Court seems hell bent on seizing the rightful authority and power from the legislative branch and the district courts and transferring it over to the president. And it appears that he currently has, for what I suspect are not admirable reasons, the full backing of the Republican Party.

~~~
by Indy! on July 7, 2025 2:04 pm

In my travels, I've found that most Republicans have absolutely no clue how our government works or what the Constitution says or means.

🤔

Did I say "most"? I meant "all". 🙂

~~~
by Donna on July 7, 2025 2:57 pm

To do so would be a violation of the 14th Amendment. If you or an undocumented immigrant is found to have committed a crime you will be held accountable, but you must first be given the chance to explain why you think you are innocent. - olde dude

That goes against one of the core principles of US law: innocent until proven guilty. The onus is on the prosecution to prove guilt, not the other way around.
If I'm wrong, enlighten me.

~~~
by HatetheSwamp on July 7, 2025 3:28 pm

"In my travels, I've found that most Republicans have absolutely no clue how our government works or what the Constitution says or means."

Lucky for us, Indy, we have you! Bahaha!

~~~
by Indy! on July 7, 2025 3:50 pm

You finally got one right, Brown Shorts.

~~~
by oldedude on July 7, 2025 4:27 pm
I am switching over to my old way of separating your fiction, and my citations (which you still haven't done) Bold for you, Italics for my citations.

isla cabron- The judge never said, thought, or assumend any such a thing."
That is EXACTLY WHAT HE DID.
The Supreme Court reviewed whether federal courts have the equitable authority under the Judiciary Act of 1789 to issue such universal (nationwide) injunctions. Justice Barrett, writing for a majority comprising Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, emphasized that universal injunctions exceeded traditional equitable remedies historically authorized by Congress.

On June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court significantly limited federal courts' authority to issue nationwide injunctions in Trump v. Casa (No. 24A884). This landmark decision fundamentally reshapes federal litigation practices, particularly in cases challenging federal executive orders and regulations, by restricting injunctions strictly to parties directly involved in specific lawsuits.

He was performing his duty when he issued an injunction suspending Trump’s illegal executive order to revoke American citizenship from a group of natural born America citizens. Trump’s order violated the 14th Amendment, as it is written and has been interpreted. The injunction provided the Supreme Court with time to interpret the matter the way they see it.

I've never argued that shithead. What he did do was to attempt to enforce HIS district's policy in nationwide injunctions. WHICH IS ILLEGAL. Even if you're to fucking stupid to understand it. Again. STILL. Read the SCOTUS two decisions which he lost 6-3 and 7-2. As much as you're claiming to "understand" the law, you're still in sixth grade civics.

Regrettably, from what seems clear to me, the Roberts Court seems hell bent on seizing the rightful authority and power from the legislative branch and the district courts and transferring it over to the president. And it appears that he currently has, for what I suspect are not admirable reasons, the full backing of the Republican Party.

Then you (and the other comudas) who knows less than you do about the government admit that you're too stupid. Right? That's what's written in Section III. So y'all really ought to figure this fucking thing out.

You may "want" in your "heart" for this to be true, and greater minds are calling y'all STUPID.

Oh. All of these were explained in the citations. So you should have read them before you looked like a COMPLETE MORON.

natlawreview.com

~~~
by islander on July 7, 2025 6:30 pm

OD wrote:"isla cabron- The judge never said, thought, or assumed any such a thing." [In this case, SCOTUS called the judge on over-reach because the judge thought himself able to change a federal law by telling everyone that he was a district judge and therefore, it has to affect the whole nation.]
That is EXACTLY WHAT HE DID." The judge never thought he was able to change a federal law.

Did you notice the dates? A nationwide preliminary partial injunction halting President Trump's illegal executive order aimed at terminating birthright citizenship was issued on February 5, 2025 This injunction provided temporary relief while the lawsuit proceeded. The Supreme Court partially stayed nationwide injunctions in the case Trump v. CASA, Inc. on June 27, 2025. The decision, a 6-3 ruling, limited the scope of injunctions issued by federal district courts, stating that they likely lack the authority to block government actions nationwide. Instead, the injunctions should be tailored to the specific parties involved in the lawsuit. This decision means the executive order may now be enforced in some jurisdictions and nationwide under certain circumstances such as a class action suit. The Supreme Court reached their decision four and a half months after the judge issued the partial injunction. That's what a partial injunction does, it gives the Supreme court time to reach a decision. The judge was not trying to change any federal laws.

~~~
by islander on July 7, 2025 6:48 pm
By the way, OD...Adios. I'm not about to waste my time trying to carry on a discussion with someone who can't discuss their position in a civilized manner.

~~~
by oldedude on July 7, 2025 6:55 pm
Funny, that's my line. You purposefully misrepresented most everything I said in order to make you feel better about yourself. I'm no fond of LIARS, and people that bend the truth just to be a fucking troll.

And, if you're that much of a little girl snowflake. you're on my "don't trust" list. Have a nice life pinche cabron!

~~~
by Indy! on July 7, 2025 7:22 pm

Wow - that's weird. The Board Liar is not fond of liars. Guess if you really think about it - it makes perfect sense. That's why she's always so bitter and anti-social - a self hater. Nothing can really satisfy a person if they're not comfortable in their own skin.

~~~
by meagain on July 7, 2025 7:26 pm
There is no "issue" with the rule of law, OD. Due process is an immutable principle of that Rule. A foundational principle. It applies to all laws without exception. Anywhere that it is not accepted is not a democracy, not even civilised.

~~~
by oldedude on July 7, 2025 7:38 pm
meagain- There is no "issue" with the rule of law, OD. Due process is an immutable principle of that Rule. A foundational principle. It applies to all laws without exception. Anywhere that it is not accepted is not a democracy, not even civilised.

I don't disagree with you. And since the 1950's the US has broke the yoke of british tyranny! It has been tested in our courts hundreds of times and this is where it sits today. IN OUR LAW, NOT YOURS. Suck it up buttercup.

pinche concha- He followed Gobbles play book, which means he follows your. Read ONLY WHAT WOULD MAKE YOU FEEL BETTER ABOUT YOUR FRAGILE LITTLE EGO. SAY IT ALOT. LIE ABOUT IT.

So you little fucking Nazi, you're caught again.

November 9th of each year is a memorial day in Germany called Night of Broken Glass Remembrance Day. It marks the anniversary of the pogrom against German Jews known as Kristallnacht—or literally, “Night of Crystal.” Nazis everywhere will celebrate and try to reenact the event.

I'm sure you're going with your "death's head uniform." Next to your toothless mommies, and under one of your daddies' skirts cleaning him up after him seeing this sexual experience for all of you.

~~~
by oldedude on July 8, 2025 6:51 am
Oh Isle,
Do you realized got groomed like his 8 year old kids he abuses. You did everything he wanted you to do and told not to tell anyone. You fell for it hook, line, and sinker. Now I respect you equally. That means I have zero respect for you. At all. Just like I don't respect your little chota buttie.

Just something to think about. and that you're just as vulnerable as that child. Which tells me again how you're completely naive.

~~~
by meagain on July 8, 2025 11:37 am
To sum up, OD. You are nuts!

~~~
by Indy! on July 8, 2025 1:11 pm

OD uses the board like most people use a psychiatrist - revealing his inner most disgusting secrets about his twisted childhood because it feels good to get it off his chest. His wife won't talk to him, the kids are afraid of being abused themselves and his owners in the military don't care as long as the parking lot is clean.

~~~
by oldedude on July 8, 2025 4:24 pm
You have no defence. You propelled yourself as a groomer. TWICE. And were proud of it, until I called you on your bullshit. That's why you've been so defensive about pedos, and groomers. wrongagain is way to naive to even understand what that is, so his reality (as a card carrying member of NAMBLA) is that it's his right to be a "Proud" member!

~~~
by Indy! on July 8, 2025 5:44 pm

See what I mean? Thanks for proving my point, OD. 😌

Chalk up another 4 lies for the Board Liar as well.

Oh - and btw, "defence" is spelled with an "s" in the United States Mr. "MAstER dEgREeS"... (snicker).

d-e-f-e-n-s-e

~~~
by oldedude on July 8, 2025 10:09 pm
DEFENCE | English meaning - Cambridge Dictionary
https://dictionary.cambridge.org › dictionary › english › defence
defence
uk/dɪˈfens/ us/dɪˈfens/
noun
protection or support against attack, criticism, or infection
an argument or explanation that you use to prove that you are not guilty of something
the things said in court to prove that a person did not commit a crime

stupid mutherfukker
dictionary.cambridge.org

~~~

Go To Top

* Anonymous comments are subject to approval before they appear.

SCOTUS only took a day to slam a district judge

Articles by category: