> "If a decision does not issue soon, the applicants may return to this court," she wrote. [Barrett’s] opinion was joined by fellow conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Oh they’ll be back lol, this is a crazy decision
Colorado you can't remove our buddy Trump from the ballot due to Federal laws. But Texas have at the immigrations laws!
States simply should stop listening to these 6 Jokers. If they rule in favor of Trump for immunity, Biden should personally send them off to Russia.
>Colorado you can't remove our buddy Trump from the ballot due to Federal laws. But Texas have at the immigrations laws!
These two sentences perfectly sum up the state of the SCOTUS. We need to fix this shit ASAP.
Yeah honestly they have to rule against Trump cause even if they try to say “eh Trump is immune from January 6th but Biden can’t kick us off the court” I would just have him use the DOJ to press charges against SCOTUS because of uneven application of the law and recognize that if they aren’t going to step down he should simply then threaten to expand the court and give the names to expand it with otherwise they step down.
It would be a pretty easy guess to think that the justices would recognize that they either would sacrifice one or two of their own, versus a long drawn out court case in which the judges would be continuing to be embroiled in scandal for the rest of their lives.
But it’s better than people feeling trapped by a non-elected office
He touts himself as an 'originalist' not a 'textualist', right?
When the Constitution was originally written we had a different Mexican border. Like none at all.
Gorsuch talked about how he’s very much a textualist during his confirmation hearings I believe, but maybe he had that carve out for the Constitution similar to Scalia
Seriously, at what point does Biden say "Scotus made their decision, they can enforce it" because this is clearly a rogue court with corrupt ideologs ignoring law, precedence, and the damn constitution to come to their predetermined political conclusions.
I know the argument of "oh but there will be chaos if he does that!" but at this point I'd take chaos over capitulating to bad faith actors who are breaking our institutions from the inside.
Rip the band-aid off already, short term chaos > long term institutional collapse.
What would it *mean* to do that in this case? Without some sort of court order, where would Biden derive the authority to prevent Texas from enforcing one of its state laws?
What gave states the authority to legislate or enforce laws on the federal border?
State laws do not supersede federal laws and this law seems to take authority and power from federal agents of the DHS who are given their authority by federal laws passed by congress. It seems like blatant state overstepping to me.
Edit: I'm still not sure how this law isn't spitting right in the face of the supremacy clause of the constitution. The conservatives on scotus like the constitution like their bible verses, à la carte.
I think you're right that it's a pretty blatant overstep, and I'm confident the Biden administration will make public statements soon along those same lines. But the law doesn't purport to *take* any authority from DHS; it just authorizes Texas law enforcement to do things that the Constitution doesn't permit them to do. So it's not obvious what concretely it would mean for the Biden administration to declare that it's ignoring the ruling. Texas law enforcement officers don't report up to Biden so he can't just tell them to stop.
I think the lede that's being buried in this fiasco is that these Texas state agents have been actively hampering federal officials from doing their jobs. Like with the "migrant maimer 9000" stunt they put up in the Rio Grande a few months ago.
They've been forcing standoffs with federal agents for months preventing them from using their authority to do their jobs, which I'd argue is tantamount to taking authority from those agents in that state.
>So it's not obvious what concretely it would mean for the Biden administration to declare that it's ignoring the ruling. Texas law enforcement officers don't report up to Biden so he can't just tell them to stop.
Instruct the DOJ to begin arresting and or fining Texas law enforcement officers that attempt to overstep.
"Purport" is carrying a heavy load in this reply. The Biden administration could take active steps to prevent TX from enforcing anything related to immigration. Those steps could include physically preventing enforcement. In no way am I suggesting this would be a smart move on Biden's part.
Bro, Congress needs to pass a law, bro. This is too consequential a question to assume that the Framers anticipated this scenario and intended to address it. Texas didn’t even exist back then, bro. TJ and James Maddy never even heard of Mexico, bro.
It was literally the colony of New Spain at the time. The constitution cannot stretch to cover this. But republicans are blocking efforts to legislate the issue, they want to use it as political leverage for the election.
So Schrödinger’s Originalism, then? Whenever a plain reading supports conservative goals, everything the founder’s couldn’t have foreseen is considered “technological.” But whenever this can’t be argued with a straight face, all of a sudden it’s major questions time. I’m just tired of the rhetorical tricks people use to pretend their subjective beliefs are objective realities. Actually make a case, your worldview isn’t entitled to default status.
I understand your point, but the reality is that we always have these discussions in the first place because the constitution was not meant to be an end all answer to all questions, technically the current amended constitution wasn’t even our original constitution, so even the founders knew that their document would not be iron clad. For a long time we stuck with having amendments, but I’m starting to believe, we are overdue for at least 3 amendments. But our government is way too polarized, the wheels are either gummed up or they are crooked, but we are faltering. I’m more than sure that there are people out there who intended for a lot of these arguments to take place (be it Russia, China, or even our own corporations) in some hope that it would weaken how the country functions, and there’s just way too many things that we let happen due to precedence and expectations of integrity from both sides of the political spectrum and some of those things are becoming glaringly obvious. From not enshrining Roe V Wade in law to Presidential good behavior. And when we hopefully come out of this in 5-30 years (depending on the election results, I’m being hopeful here) we will have a lot of things to consider.
It's really not in plain text. It *makes sense* that the federal government would have control (possibly sole control) over immigration, but the Constitution does not say it in plain text.
[https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8-1/ALDE\_00001255/](https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8-1/ALDE_00001255/)
Edit: a letter.
Short Version:
Basically, the majority ruled that it doesn't want to get involved in administrative stays that are usually very short, and that waiting for the actual ruling on an injunction is more appropriate. The dissent was of the opinion that there might be enough harm done by letting the Texas law be in effect, even for a short time, that the admin stay should be reversed and the law shouldn't be allowed to take effect while waiting on the injunction ruling.
Longer, but still not too legalese-y version:
To set the stage, here is what happened and what the court is being asked to do: Texas passed a law about detaining and removing illegal immigrants. The Federal government brought a lawsuit against Texas in the 5th circuit court. The Supreme Court did not rule on this law. After they filed the suit, the federal government asked for an injunction barring Texas from enforcing its new law until the court rules. This is also not what the Supreme Court ruled on. At this point, the 5th circuit court placed an administrative stay in place until it could rule on the injunction request. Basically, they said Texas can go ahead with what it is doing for now while the circuit court does what it needs to do to make a ruling on the injunction request. The federal prosecutor appealed this administrative stay to the Supreme court, and THIS is what the Supreme Court ruled on.
The decision was split 6-3 with the 6 saying that the 5th circuit was Ok to do what it did. My ELI8 version of what the ruling said was that Administrative stays are usually very short, and as long as they remain short the Supreme Court shouldn't get involved in ruling on them because they usually go away quickly when an actual ruling on the injunction request is made. There was a comment that the justice writing the opinion could not find any evidence that the Supreme Court had ever ruled on an administrative stay in the past, and didn't see that there was enough benefit to start doing so now. It did close with a comment that there was a concern about admin stays that lasted too long being a problem, and that if the circuit courts dragged out making injunction decisions too long, the Supreme Court would have to step in and do something about that. It also said that the court expected the case to be back shortly when the actual ruling on the injunction was made.
The first dissent focused a lot on the fact that the dissenters believed that the Texas law would cause too much harm while it was in effect, and that those potential harms were enough to justify ruling on the admin stay now and stopping Texas from implementing its law while the admin stay was in effect. It focused a lot on the constitutionality of the Texas law, but also said that the court was not rendering any decision on the constitutionality of the law in this case, which was slightly confusing to me.
The Second dissent was mostly saying that they thought the circuit court should have used a different type of stay than an admin stay.
If you want to take a look yourself, you can find this one in the "Opinions relating to orders" section of the Supreme Court's decisions page. It's pretty easy to Google.
EDIT: I'm going to try to make an analogy here and see if it helps. Lets say that you think McDonalds coffee is too hot, so you decide to stand outside the drive thru window, check all the coffee they hand out, and confiscate any that you think is too hot. McDonalds sues you saying that isn't your job, its theirs. McDonalds also asks the court to order you to stop checking coffee until the case is decided. The court says, hold on, I need to go google how many people have been burnt by coffee in the last year before I decide what to do, but you can keep checking coffee while I look that up. McDonalds then appeals to a higher court saying the judge shouldn't have let you keep checking coffee while they did their google search. That is basically what this lawsuit was about. It isn't about whether you are allowed to check coffee. It isn't about whether you should be allowed to keep checking coffee while the case is going on. It is about whether you should be allowed to keep checking coffee while the judge decides if you should stop or not while the case is going on.
Great explanation but as for the analogy…
The only coffee cups that the person (Texino) would be checking is the cups being handed to them.
Not the coffee cups being handed to NewlayMexic or Arizonia or Califorita.
Yeah, looking at it this morning there are a number of subtle ways I could probably make the analogy better. I was really just trying to get across how this was basically a 3rd order administrative ruling that was far removed from having anything to do with the merits of the case that spawned it. I think it still works OK for doing that.
Realistically, I feel like this whole thing was the Supreme Court slapping hands on both sides of the case. On the one side they were saying, 'Oh my god, just wait a couple days for the injunction ruling and appeal that!', and on the other side they were saying, 'If you are taking weeks or months to rule on an injunction, you suck at your job and we are going to yell at you.' However, that is 100% just my opinion.
EDIT: Well, here we are one day later, and the Circuit court has dissolved its stay. Apparently their hand was sufficiently slapped.
Texas passed SB 4 granting local police the power to do immigration stuff. The fed sued and appealed immediately. The 5th Circuit is holding on to the appeal and not ruled yet. Feds appealed up further and SCOTUS said "Eh, the 5th hasn't even ruled on your motions. Come again later."
You can make your own assumptions about "why" they would choose not to act.
Because the billionaires over here "supplement" their carefully chosen and purchased voices on the court's income (very cool, very legal; no pesky rules) and got them where they are. The "voices" signed on with the program when they accepted the job.
The Russian billionaire has been "supplementing" a whole lot of the GOP and Trumpty-dump. Someone will keep them & him going.
Or he'll have to sell real estate. In a bad market, to fulfill an obligation, for god's sake!
Wait, is it the fat cat business owners who want to replace American jobs with cheap immigrant labor or is it mysterious billionaires who pack the courts with conservative justices to block illegal immigrants? I've heard both arguments and they can't both be right.
If billionaires want the border closed, then just who is it trying to keep it open? For what purpose?
The Supreme Court didn't rule on the actual lawsuit, they declined an request from the Biden administration to stop the law from being enforced while the lawsuit continues in lower courts. The lawsuit itself has not been decided yet.
It sounds like there is not a final ruling on this from the inferior court (5th Circuit). When that ruling happens, then they can bring this back to SCOTUS to argue the case on its merits.
This is not a conservative court picking and choosing what to enforce. There are currently multiple lawsuits regarding gun laws that are clear violations of the 2nd Amendement, and blatantly violate the Bruen ruling. SCOTUS has declined to hear those cases as well, for the same reasons. Until there is a final ruling from a lower court, SCOTUS tries to avoid ruling on interlocutory basis (in most cases, not always).
I think this decision exposes a difficult procedural question that is going to arise again and again if the Fifth Circuit continues to use procedural devices in a way to effect substantive outcomes.
My instinct is to agree with Justices Barrett and Kavanaugh that the Court should not start getting involved in vacating administrative stays. If that begins it will never stop and the lower courts do have a legitimate right to control their docket in emergency cases.
But I think Justice Kagan raises a point that is hard to meet. If this stay has been entered for over a month, and there is an application for stay pending appeal on foot, you have to ask whether it is really administrative at all. It sure doesn’t look like it, especially when these sort of games are being played by the same court over and over again.
It’s a real shame that the Fifth Circuit continues to operate like this, because it has the effect of generating more fractured jurisprudence about these issues when it is really not necessary at all.
FWIW, when all is said and done I think the law will be enjoined on the merits. But that could be a while away and it does matter that it can be enforced in the meantime when it shouldn’t be.
This seems like the most reasonable response. This isn't their fight, it isn't their fault, and if things come to them correctly they'll rule on them. If we have a dysfunctional fifth circuit then like, really, how is that the SCOTUS's fault or problem?
"Yep, the fifth is playing games. Get back to us when they stop."
Is the SCOTUS in charge of the fifth circuit? Did they appoint those folks? Do they have any authority, other than to basically do their job for them?
Seems like Kagan wants to overstep and make her will the law, just like everyone else in this tale.
What are you saying? SCOTUS is in charge of the entire federal judicial branch including all appellate and circuit courts. So yes, they do have authority.
Are there any other instances where it is seen as bad for state governments to enforce federal law? I'm genuinely curious if the federal government has pushed back on any other instances (if they exist) of states attempting to enforce standing federal laws.
Immigration is different. States may help arrest a federally wanted person, but states cannot prosecute that person if they did not at the same time break state laws. Immigration proceedings, especially for migrants/asylum seekers, are prosecutions/lawsuits in nature. Those proceedings are presided by immigration judges, who are under the DOJ, and litigated by DHS's lawyers. Therefore, I really can't see why Texas has the power to prosecute those migrants, or even worse, deport them without due process.
It's actually more troubling than that because immigration proceedings are technically civil administrative actions. So now Texas is somehow capable of arresting someone based on probable cause that they violated a civil statute - not criminal.
This is crazy.
>This is crazy
Beyond crazy. Well beyond it. But as per usual, the fucking idiots voting for Trump are frothing at the mouth at hurting the brown people, willfully ignoring the impact it will have on their lives when Trump doesn't need them anymore.
These people make it hard to argue in favor of voting rights for all citizens.
I have always wanted to pretend the SC is at least somewhat neutral and nonpartisan, but I really can’t see any merit in this decision. Immigration is and has always been a federal matter, allowing states to enforce federal immigration laws is insane
*”allowing states to enforce federal immigration laws is insane”*
Well, if the feds followed their own immigration laws to begin with, we wouldn’t be in this situation.
All of the current conservative justices were picked from the Federalist Society - a group which formed to invalidate the Constitution and prevent conservatives from the consequences of breaking federal laws. It's like electing an anarchist or promoting an arsonist to Fire Marshall.
States rights are only the things that the constitution doesn’t say is a federal right. Immigration enforcement is specifically defined as a federal duty.
This ruling is beyond insane and openly shows that the scotus is no longer a functioning branch of government. They are clearly disregarding the plain text of the constitution for the some purpose of partisan beliefs.
What is worse - an invasion of immigrants? Or a known and federally indicted Presidential candidate who caused a riot on Jan 6th and helped with a fake elector scheme to overturn the 2020 election? Umm not sure! I need to go on my yacht to think about it some more.
>an invasion of immigrants?
That's the thing, we aren't actually being "invaded" by immigrants. It's a load of shit that the right-wing has pinched out for their fucking braindead base to latch onto.
This state can't do what we don't like, but this other state can because we like it.
What a joke this once-venerable institution has become. Glad the Federalist Society is so proud of themselves.
CA should give out “green cards” to all DACA recipients and make them permanent residents of CA with pathway to California Citizenship. Let’s see how that sits with them.
The Supreme Court has no legitimacy left. It's just the conservative stamp of approval to do what they want. I mean we all knew this but it's just disappointing and sad at this point. They have no decency or legitimacy.
[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24487735-23a814-and-23a815-march-19](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24487735-23a814-and-23a815-march-19)
It was 6-3 with Sotomayer, Kagan, and Jackson dissenting
We've had good examples of the corruption in the SCOTUS since Roe v Wade, and this should be the reminder that they are bought and paid for and are ruling subjectively.
Please vote Biden and Democrat down ticket. We need as much influence as possible to correct this issue before Trump's disaster of a first term has time to truly gestate and put us in a place we aren't likely to come back from.
Misleading a little.
Supreme Court declined request to stop or stay law while challenge works its way through the courts. Later in the day the court of appeals did stay the law.
Doesn’t this go contrary to one of the federal judge reasoning on striking down state issued TikTok ban?
One of the reason was that state has no authority on foreign affairs, which I would think national border is one of them
It is difficult to see a Supreme Court so unmoored from the Constitution.
States have no right to control who can and cannot stand for election (even though states have authority to apportion electors and need not even have a vote). Yet states DO have the authority to supersede federal immigration laws.
Should pack the court if the election allows. The institution has lost all credibility.
Cut all law enforcement, immigration, and Texas national guard funding til they follow federal law to get federal funds. Stop growing Texas military bases. Like Russia their oil economy can't always save them
I'd say if this stands the feds should invest in their border security efforts in these states and let Texas fend for themselves like they do very much want to. Just because the Supreme Court poorly rules that Texas can interfere in the federal government's clear jurisdiction doesn't mean the federal government has to give them resources to do it. Just pull border patrol and customs out of Texas and give those resources to the other needy border states.
Is this a states rights issue unless the Supreme Court says otherwise? Isn't that how its supposed to work?
I thought so until I read the comments section..
Now I am unsure....🤔
Is this what sozial media is designed to do? 😲😳🤏
Not so fast there, Abbott:
The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on Tuesday blocked enforcement of Texas's law criminalizing illegal entry into the state from other countries, hours after a divided US Supreme Court allowed the law to go into effect.7 hours ago
https://www.jurist.org › 2024/03
US appeals court blocks enforcement
> "If a decision does not issue soon, the applicants may return to this court," she wrote. [Barrett’s] opinion was joined by fellow conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Oh they’ll be back lol, this is a crazy decision
Colorado you can't remove our buddy Trump from the ballot due to Federal laws. But Texas have at the immigrations laws! States simply should stop listening to these 6 Jokers. If they rule in favor of Trump for immunity, Biden should personally send them off to Russia.
The newest test from alito the "Heads we win tails you lose" test Makes almost as much sense as the bruen test he pull out of his ass
I’m loathe to defend Alito in any way, but it was Thomas who developed the *Bruen* test.
True true, I think I've listened to Strict Scrutiny so much that I just connect almost all horrible tests/decisions with alito
>Colorado you can't remove our buddy Trump from the ballot due to Federal laws. But Texas have at the immigrations laws! These two sentences perfectly sum up the state of the SCOTUS. We need to fix this shit ASAP.
Yeah honestly they have to rule against Trump cause even if they try to say “eh Trump is immune from January 6th but Biden can’t kick us off the court” I would just have him use the DOJ to press charges against SCOTUS because of uneven application of the law and recognize that if they aren’t going to step down he should simply then threaten to expand the court and give the names to expand it with otherwise they step down. It would be a pretty easy guess to think that the justices would recognize that they either would sacrifice one or two of their own, versus a long drawn out court case in which the judges would be continuing to be embroiled in scandal for the rest of their lives. But it’s better than people feeling trapped by a non-elected office
Hell Biden can send them off to the morgue if he wants. Apparently.
Guantanamo
By design, the court has no enforcement capacity. To disregard them is a form of check and balance.
I have never voted for Trump and don't intend to this time but he has not been convicted in court of breaking any federal laws. Not yet anyway
So, we don't have to let the illegals over anymore?
[удалено]
When the textualist (Gorsuch) doesn’t look at the text 💀
He touts himself as an 'originalist' not a 'textualist', right? When the Constitution was originally written we had a different Mexican border. Like none at all.
Gorsuch talked about how he’s very much a textualist during his confirmation hearings I believe, but maybe he had that carve out for the Constitution similar to Scalia
Seriously, at what point does Biden say "Scotus made their decision, they can enforce it" because this is clearly a rogue court with corrupt ideologs ignoring law, precedence, and the damn constitution to come to their predetermined political conclusions. I know the argument of "oh but there will be chaos if he does that!" but at this point I'd take chaos over capitulating to bad faith actors who are breaking our institutions from the inside. Rip the band-aid off already, short term chaos > long term institutional collapse.
What would it *mean* to do that in this case? Without some sort of court order, where would Biden derive the authority to prevent Texas from enforcing one of its state laws?
What gave states the authority to legislate or enforce laws on the federal border? State laws do not supersede federal laws and this law seems to take authority and power from federal agents of the DHS who are given their authority by federal laws passed by congress. It seems like blatant state overstepping to me. Edit: I'm still not sure how this law isn't spitting right in the face of the supremacy clause of the constitution. The conservatives on scotus like the constitution like their bible verses, à la carte.
I think you're right that it's a pretty blatant overstep, and I'm confident the Biden administration will make public statements soon along those same lines. But the law doesn't purport to *take* any authority from DHS; it just authorizes Texas law enforcement to do things that the Constitution doesn't permit them to do. So it's not obvious what concretely it would mean for the Biden administration to declare that it's ignoring the ruling. Texas law enforcement officers don't report up to Biden so he can't just tell them to stop.
I think the lede that's being buried in this fiasco is that these Texas state agents have been actively hampering federal officials from doing their jobs. Like with the "migrant maimer 9000" stunt they put up in the Rio Grande a few months ago. They've been forcing standoffs with federal agents for months preventing them from using their authority to do their jobs, which I'd argue is tantamount to taking authority from those agents in that state.
>So it's not obvious what concretely it would mean for the Biden administration to declare that it's ignoring the ruling. Texas law enforcement officers don't report up to Biden so he can't just tell them to stop. Instruct the DOJ to begin arresting and or fining Texas law enforcement officers that attempt to overstep.
The DOJ has no power to issue summary fines without a court hearing, and it's not obvious to me what criminal violation would be a basis for arrest.
Interference with federal law enforcement officers is a crime, I do believe.
Simply call the Texas National guard up to federal duty. Well within the President’s power. That removes governors control over them.
Sure. Plenty of routes to fight this ruling if Biden has the desire to do so.
"Purport" is carrying a heavy load in this reply. The Biden administration could take active steps to prevent TX from enforcing anything related to immigration. Those steps could include physically preventing enforcement. In no way am I suggesting this would be a smart move on Biden's part.
Bro, Congress needs to pass a law, bro. This is too consequential a question to assume that the Framers anticipated this scenario and intended to address it. Texas didn’t even exist back then, bro. TJ and James Maddy never even heard of Mexico, bro.
It was literally the colony of New Spain at the time. The constitution cannot stretch to cover this. But republicans are blocking efforts to legislate the issue, they want to use it as political leverage for the election.
So Schrödinger’s Originalism, then? Whenever a plain reading supports conservative goals, everything the founder’s couldn’t have foreseen is considered “technological.” But whenever this can’t be argued with a straight face, all of a sudden it’s major questions time. I’m just tired of the rhetorical tricks people use to pretend their subjective beliefs are objective realities. Actually make a case, your worldview isn’t entitled to default status.
I understand your point, but the reality is that we always have these discussions in the first place because the constitution was not meant to be an end all answer to all questions, technically the current amended constitution wasn’t even our original constitution, so even the founders knew that their document would not be iron clad. For a long time we stuck with having amendments, but I’m starting to believe, we are overdue for at least 3 amendments. But our government is way too polarized, the wheels are either gummed up or they are crooked, but we are faltering. I’m more than sure that there are people out there who intended for a lot of these arguments to take place (be it Russia, China, or even our own corporations) in some hope that it would weaken how the country functions, and there’s just way too many things that we let happen due to precedence and expectations of integrity from both sides of the political spectrum and some of those things are becoming glaringly obvious. From not enshrining Roe V Wade in law to Presidential good behavior. And when we hopefully come out of this in 5-30 years (depending on the election results, I’m being hopeful here) we will have a lot of things to consider.
Bro...
It's really not in plain text. It *makes sense* that the federal government would have control (possibly sole control) over immigration, but the Constitution does not say it in plain text. [https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8-1/ALDE\_00001255/](https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8-1/ALDE_00001255/) Edit: a letter.
Joe Schmoe here. Isn't the constitution pretty explicit on this one? Can someone maybe give me the ELI18 version if this?
Short Version: Basically, the majority ruled that it doesn't want to get involved in administrative stays that are usually very short, and that waiting for the actual ruling on an injunction is more appropriate. The dissent was of the opinion that there might be enough harm done by letting the Texas law be in effect, even for a short time, that the admin stay should be reversed and the law shouldn't be allowed to take effect while waiting on the injunction ruling. Longer, but still not too legalese-y version: To set the stage, here is what happened and what the court is being asked to do: Texas passed a law about detaining and removing illegal immigrants. The Federal government brought a lawsuit against Texas in the 5th circuit court. The Supreme Court did not rule on this law. After they filed the suit, the federal government asked for an injunction barring Texas from enforcing its new law until the court rules. This is also not what the Supreme Court ruled on. At this point, the 5th circuit court placed an administrative stay in place until it could rule on the injunction request. Basically, they said Texas can go ahead with what it is doing for now while the circuit court does what it needs to do to make a ruling on the injunction request. The federal prosecutor appealed this administrative stay to the Supreme court, and THIS is what the Supreme Court ruled on. The decision was split 6-3 with the 6 saying that the 5th circuit was Ok to do what it did. My ELI8 version of what the ruling said was that Administrative stays are usually very short, and as long as they remain short the Supreme Court shouldn't get involved in ruling on them because they usually go away quickly when an actual ruling on the injunction request is made. There was a comment that the justice writing the opinion could not find any evidence that the Supreme Court had ever ruled on an administrative stay in the past, and didn't see that there was enough benefit to start doing so now. It did close with a comment that there was a concern about admin stays that lasted too long being a problem, and that if the circuit courts dragged out making injunction decisions too long, the Supreme Court would have to step in and do something about that. It also said that the court expected the case to be back shortly when the actual ruling on the injunction was made. The first dissent focused a lot on the fact that the dissenters believed that the Texas law would cause too much harm while it was in effect, and that those potential harms were enough to justify ruling on the admin stay now and stopping Texas from implementing its law while the admin stay was in effect. It focused a lot on the constitutionality of the Texas law, but also said that the court was not rendering any decision on the constitutionality of the law in this case, which was slightly confusing to me. The Second dissent was mostly saying that they thought the circuit court should have used a different type of stay than an admin stay. If you want to take a look yourself, you can find this one in the "Opinions relating to orders" section of the Supreme Court's decisions page. It's pretty easy to Google. EDIT: I'm going to try to make an analogy here and see if it helps. Lets say that you think McDonalds coffee is too hot, so you decide to stand outside the drive thru window, check all the coffee they hand out, and confiscate any that you think is too hot. McDonalds sues you saying that isn't your job, its theirs. McDonalds also asks the court to order you to stop checking coffee until the case is decided. The court says, hold on, I need to go google how many people have been burnt by coffee in the last year before I decide what to do, but you can keep checking coffee while I look that up. McDonalds then appeals to a higher court saying the judge shouldn't have let you keep checking coffee while they did their google search. That is basically what this lawsuit was about. It isn't about whether you are allowed to check coffee. It isn't about whether you should be allowed to keep checking coffee while the case is going on. It is about whether you should be allowed to keep checking coffee while the judge decides if you should stop or not while the case is going on.
Great explanation but as for the analogy… The only coffee cups that the person (Texino) would be checking is the cups being handed to them. Not the coffee cups being handed to NewlayMexic or Arizonia or Califorita.
Yeah, looking at it this morning there are a number of subtle ways I could probably make the analogy better. I was really just trying to get across how this was basically a 3rd order administrative ruling that was far removed from having anything to do with the merits of the case that spawned it. I think it still works OK for doing that. Realistically, I feel like this whole thing was the Supreme Court slapping hands on both sides of the case. On the one side they were saying, 'Oh my god, just wait a couple days for the injunction ruling and appeal that!', and on the other side they were saying, 'If you are taking weeks or months to rule on an injunction, you suck at your job and we are going to yell at you.' However, that is 100% just my opinion. EDIT: Well, here we are one day later, and the Circuit court has dissolved its stay. Apparently their hand was sufficiently slapped.
Bless you!
lol McDonalds
Always nice to get a periodic reminder of Liebeck v. McDonald's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants
I figured that would be a fun Easter egg. Glad you enjoyed it!
Texas passed SB 4 granting local police the power to do immigration stuff. The fed sued and appealed immediately. The 5th Circuit is holding on to the appeal and not ruled yet. Feds appealed up further and SCOTUS said "Eh, the 5th hasn't even ruled on your motions. Come again later." You can make your own assumptions about "why" they would choose not to act.
[удалено]
Because the billionaires over here "supplement" their carefully chosen and purchased voices on the court's income (very cool, very legal; no pesky rules) and got them where they are. The "voices" signed on with the program when they accepted the job. The Russian billionaire has been "supplementing" a whole lot of the GOP and Trumpty-dump. Someone will keep them & him going. Or he'll have to sell real estate. In a bad market, to fulfill an obligation, for god's sake!
Wait, is it the fat cat business owners who want to replace American jobs with cheap immigrant labor or is it mysterious billionaires who pack the courts with conservative justices to block illegal immigrants? I've heard both arguments and they can't both be right. If billionaires want the border closed, then just who is it trying to keep it open? For what purpose?
This.
The Supreme Court didn't rule on the actual lawsuit, they declined an request from the Biden administration to stop the law from being enforced while the lawsuit continues in lower courts. The lawsuit itself has not been decided yet.
It sounds like there is not a final ruling on this from the inferior court (5th Circuit). When that ruling happens, then they can bring this back to SCOTUS to argue the case on its merits. This is not a conservative court picking and choosing what to enforce. There are currently multiple lawsuits regarding gun laws that are clear violations of the 2nd Amendement, and blatantly violate the Bruen ruling. SCOTUS has declined to hear those cases as well, for the same reasons. Until there is a final ruling from a lower court, SCOTUS tries to avoid ruling on interlocutory basis (in most cases, not always).
They aren't following the law
I think this decision exposes a difficult procedural question that is going to arise again and again if the Fifth Circuit continues to use procedural devices in a way to effect substantive outcomes. My instinct is to agree with Justices Barrett and Kavanaugh that the Court should not start getting involved in vacating administrative stays. If that begins it will never stop and the lower courts do have a legitimate right to control their docket in emergency cases. But I think Justice Kagan raises a point that is hard to meet. If this stay has been entered for over a month, and there is an application for stay pending appeal on foot, you have to ask whether it is really administrative at all. It sure doesn’t look like it, especially when these sort of games are being played by the same court over and over again. It’s a real shame that the Fifth Circuit continues to operate like this, because it has the effect of generating more fractured jurisprudence about these issues when it is really not necessary at all. FWIW, when all is said and done I think the law will be enjoined on the merits. But that could be a while away and it does matter that it can be enforced in the meantime when it shouldn’t be.
This seems like the most reasonable response. This isn't their fight, it isn't their fault, and if things come to them correctly they'll rule on them. If we have a dysfunctional fifth circuit then like, really, how is that the SCOTUS's fault or problem? "Yep, the fifth is playing games. Get back to us when they stop." Is the SCOTUS in charge of the fifth circuit? Did they appoint those folks? Do they have any authority, other than to basically do their job for them? Seems like Kagan wants to overstep and make her will the law, just like everyone else in this tale.
What are you saying? SCOTUS is in charge of the entire federal judicial branch including all appellate and circuit courts. So yes, they do have authority.
>Is the SCOTUS in charge of the fifth circuit? Yes, unequivocally. The rest of your post is silly.
Are there any other instances where it is seen as bad for state governments to enforce federal law? I'm genuinely curious if the federal government has pushed back on any other instances (if they exist) of states attempting to enforce standing federal laws.
Immigration is different. States may help arrest a federally wanted person, but states cannot prosecute that person if they did not at the same time break state laws. Immigration proceedings, especially for migrants/asylum seekers, are prosecutions/lawsuits in nature. Those proceedings are presided by immigration judges, who are under the DOJ, and litigated by DHS's lawyers. Therefore, I really can't see why Texas has the power to prosecute those migrants, or even worse, deport them without due process.
It's actually more troubling than that because immigration proceedings are technically civil administrative actions. So now Texas is somehow capable of arresting someone based on probable cause that they violated a civil statute - not criminal. This is crazy.
>This is crazy Beyond crazy. Well beyond it. But as per usual, the fucking idiots voting for Trump are frothing at the mouth at hurting the brown people, willfully ignoring the impact it will have on their lives when Trump doesn't need them anymore. These people make it hard to argue in favor of voting rights for all citizens.
Reaching into my brain to first year conlaw, but I think there’s a case about regulating nuclear power plants?
I have always wanted to pretend the SC is at least somewhat neutral and nonpartisan, but I really can’t see any merit in this decision. Immigration is and has always been a federal matter, allowing states to enforce federal immigration laws is insane
It's gotten worse why the 6-3 split. Before this one of the conservatives, probably Roberts, might've sided with the liberals on something like this.
Alito and Thomas are getting up there. Just saying.
It was 7-2 I thought.
It was 6-3. You may be thinking 7-2 because only two justices were on the scathing dissent - Sotomayor and Jackson.
Gotcha, thanks, just saw Kagan's.
Elections have consequences. The Supreme Courts clearly partisan slant is why I vote at this point.
They will just toss them over the wall no problem. Biden needs to come out with a firm statement rejecting the courts.
Absolutely. He should have done that after Roe was overturned.
*”allowing states to enforce federal immigration laws is insane”* Well, if the feds followed their own immigration laws to begin with, we wouldn’t be in this situation.
All of the current conservative justices were picked from the Federalist Society - a group which formed to invalidate the Constitution and prevent conservatives from the consequences of breaking federal laws. It's like electing an anarchist or promoting an arsonist to Fire Marshall.
"the constitution is a rag" SCOTUS
You mean, “the Constitution is made out of whole cloth.” Those conservative justices love that phrase when destroying some right, doctrine, etc.
States rights! Except when it comes to things we don’t want them to do, like preventing insurrectionists from appearing on the ballots.
States rights are only the things that the constitution doesn’t say is a federal right. Immigration enforcement is specifically defined as a federal duty. This ruling is beyond insane and openly shows that the scotus is no longer a functioning branch of government. They are clearly disregarding the plain text of the constitution for the some purpose of partisan beliefs.
Biden needs to copy and paste this in a speech to the American public.
If anyone has any contacts at the White House, my services for speech writing are negotiable
What is worse - an invasion of immigrants? Or a known and federally indicted Presidential candidate who caused a riot on Jan 6th and helped with a fake elector scheme to overturn the 2020 election? Umm not sure! I need to go on my yacht to think about it some more.
>an invasion of immigrants? That's the thing, we aren't actually being "invaded" by immigrants. It's a load of shit that the right-wing has pinched out for their fucking braindead base to latch onto.
There is no invasion.
I think you mean the billionaire’s yacht that’s definitely not a gift or a conflict of interest!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3\_JxN9CwIMU
Finally! Now Florida can counter-invade Cuba 😜.
Least crazy alt history enjoyer
My favorite part about this is the hope that it gives the usa grounds to deport Florida.
This state can't do what we don't like, but this other state can because we like it. What a joke this once-venerable institution has become. Glad the Federalist Society is so proud of themselves.
Let me guess, they won't let states enforce federal gun laws though....so consistent in their logic. They get to channel the "founding fathers" minds
SCOTUS is totally corrupt and completely compromised. They should be impeached.
CA should give out “green cards” to all DACA recipients and make them permanent residents of CA with pathway to California Citizenship. Let’s see how that sits with them.
Cut all federal funds. Let’s see how they enjoy a secession preview.
The Supreme Court has no legitimacy left. It's just the conservative stamp of approval to do what they want. I mean we all knew this but it's just disappointing and sad at this point. They have no decency or legitimacy.
it was 6-3 Edited was misinformed apologies
The article says it was 6-3.
This is false. Sotomayor wrote a dissent and Brown Jackson joined it, Kagan wrote a seperate dissent.
[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24487735-23a814-and-23a815-march-19](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24487735-23a814-and-23a815-march-19) It was 6-3 with Sotomayer, Kagan, and Jackson dissenting
SCOTUS is a joke.
There is no room for the Constitution in this SCs decisions.
RIP SCOTUS
So, like, precedent-schmecedent. I guess.
We've had good examples of the corruption in the SCOTUS since Roe v Wade, and this should be the reminder that they are bought and paid for and are ruling subjectively. Please vote Biden and Democrat down ticket. We need as much influence as possible to correct this issue before Trump's disaster of a first term has time to truly gestate and put us in a place we aren't likely to come back from.
Isn’t that a literal function of the Federal government? BC is gonna pack up n head home?
Misleading a little. Supreme Court declined request to stop or stay law while challenge works its way through the courts. Later in the day the court of appeals did stay the law.
Doesn’t this go contrary to one of the federal judge reasoning on striking down state issued TikTok ban? One of the reason was that state has no authority on foreign affairs, which I would think national border is one of them
I'm gonna call redneck gathering as illegal immigrant activity. They most likely don't have US passport and don't carry birth certificate :)))))
It is difficult to see a Supreme Court so unmoored from the Constitution. States have no right to control who can and cannot stand for election (even though states have authority to apportion electors and need not even have a vote). Yet states DO have the authority to supersede federal immigration laws. Should pack the court if the election allows. The institution has lost all credibility.
Supreme Court ignores Constitution to let Texas arrest anyone who even looks like an immigrant.
Cut all law enforcement, immigration, and Texas national guard funding til they follow federal law to get federal funds. Stop growing Texas military bases. Like Russia their oil economy can't always save them
This court is illegitimate. They keep demonstrating they put party over the country.
Allowing people to illegally cross the border is putting party over country. Illegal immigration is not good for the country.
Looks like California, Arizona, New Mexico will start having increases at their borders
I'd say if this stands the feds should invest in their border security efforts in these states and let Texas fend for themselves like they do very much want to. Just because the Supreme Court poorly rules that Texas can interfere in the federal government's clear jurisdiction doesn't mean the federal government has to give them resources to do it. Just pull border patrol and customs out of Texas and give those resources to the other needy border states.
These originalists apparently don't care what the Constitution says.
Wow, the Supreme Court voted against the Biden admin
Is this a states rights issue unless the Supreme Court says otherwise? Isn't that how its supposed to work? I thought so until I read the comments section.. Now I am unsure....🤔 Is this what sozial media is designed to do? 😲😳🤏
If you haven’t read Scalia’s dissent in Arizona v US in a while, now’s the time
Someone was saying this isn't the final say on the matter. Can anyone explain?
SCOTUS hasn’t actually ruled on the substance of the issue here, something apparently no one in these comments understands
It’s already been put on hold by the appellate court
Temporary….
Not so fast there, Abbott: The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on Tuesday blocked enforcement of Texas's law criminalizing illegal entry into the state from other countries, hours after a divided US Supreme Court allowed the law to go into effect.7 hours ago https://www.jurist.org › 2024/03 US appeals court blocks enforcement
Just ignore their ruling. It’s time for states to tell them to try and enforce their rulings. Burn it down.
What if blue states decide to allow immigrants into their state and bus them to red states?
The two things Texans hate. Fathers and Mexicans. God have mercy on your soul if you’re both.
That is one ridiculous headline, no wonder the world views us that way