Latest news with #CASAInc
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Contributor: Lower-court judges have no business setting the law of the land
On Thursday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Trump vs. CASA Inc. Though the case arises out of President Trump's January executive order on birthright citizenship and the 14th Amendment, Thursday's oral argument had very little to do with whether everyone born in the U.S. is automatically a U.S. citizen. Instead, the argument mostly focused on a procedural legal issue that is just as important: whether lower-court federal judges possess the legitimate power to issue nationwide injunctions to bring laws or executive orders to a halt beyond their districts. There is a very straightforward answer to this question: No, they don't. And it is imperative for American constitutionalism and republican sef-governance that the justices clearly affirm that. Let's start with the text. Article III of the Constitution establishes the 'judicial Power' of the United States, which University of Chicago Law School professor Will Baude argued in a 2008 law review article 'is the power to issue binding judgments and to settle legal disputes within the court's jurisdiction.' If the federal courts can bind certain parties, the crucial question is: Who is bound by a federal court issuing an injunction? In our system of governance, it is only the named parties to a given lawsuit that can truly be bound by a lower court's judgment. As the brilliant then-Stanford Law School professor Jonathan Mitchell put it in an influential 2018 law review article, an 'injunction is nothing more than a judicially imposed non-enforcement policy' that 'forbids the named defendants to enforce the statute' — or executive order — 'while the court's order remains in place.' Fundamentally, as Samuel L. Bray observed in another significant 2017 law review article, a federal court's injunction binds only 'the defendant's conduct … with respect to the plaintiff.' If other courts in other districts face a similar case, those judges might consider their peer's decision and follow it, but they are not strictly required to do so. (For truly nationwide legal issues, the proper recourse is filing a class-action lawsuit, as authorized by Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.) One need not be a legal scholar to understand this commonsense point. Americans are a self-governing people; it is we the people, according to the Constitution's Preamble, who are sovereign in the United States. And while the judiciary serves as an important check on congressional or executive overreach in specific cases or controversies that come before it (as Article III puts it), there is no broader ability for lower-court judges to decide the law of the land by striking down a law or order for all of the American people. As President Lincoln warned in his first inaugural address: 'The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by' the judiciary, 'the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers.' Simply put, the patriots of 1776 did not rebel against the tyranny of King George III only to subject themselves, many generations later, to the black-robed tyranny of today. They fought for the ability to live freely and self-govern, and to thereby control their own fates and destinies. Judicial supremacy and the concomitant misguided practice of nationwide injunctions necessarily deprive a free people of the ability to do exactly that. It is true that Chief Justice John Marshall's landmark 1803 ruling in Marbury vs. Madison established that 'it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.' But it is also true, as Marshall noted in the less frequently quoted sentence directly following that assertion: 'Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule.' Note the all-important qualifier of 'apply the rule to particular cases.' Marbury is often erroneously invoked to support judicial supremacy, but the modest case- and litigant-specific judicial review that Marshall established has nothing to do with the modern judicial supremacy and nationwide injunctions that proliferate today. It is that fallacious conception of judicial supremacy that was argued Thursday at the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., one of the swing votes in CASA, is not always known for judicial modesty. On the contrary, in clumsily attempting to defend his institution's integrity, he has at times indulged in unvarnished judicial supremacist rhetoric and presided over an unjustifiable arrogation of power to what Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist No. 78, referred to as the 'least dangerous' of the three branches. If Roberts and his fellow centrist justices — namely, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — have any sense of prudence, they must join their more stalwart originalist colleagues in holding that nationwide injunctions offend the very core of our constitutional order. Such a ruling would not merely be a win for Trump; it would be a win for the Constitution and for self-governance itself. Josh Hammer's latest book is 'Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West.' This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate. @josh_hammer If it's in the news right now, the L.A. Times' Opinion section covers it. Sign up for our weekly opinion newsletter. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
E&E News
16-05-2025
- Politics
- E&E News
Supreme Court justices appear open to stopping courts from blocking Trump orders
Conservative justices on the Supreme Court appeared open to curbing lower courts' ability to block Trump administration policies as the White House faces challenges to its efforts to curtail immigration and turbocharge fossil fuel development. During oral arguments Thursday, the justices weighed whether lower courts had overstepped by imposing nationwide injunctions against the president's executive orders that seek to restrict birthright citizenship, which is guaranteed under the 14th Amendment. Justice Neil Gorsuch likened an individual judge issuing a ruling that applies across the country to a finding that 'everybody, everywhere, nationwide, perhaps cosmically, stands to benefit.'' Advertisement The case, Trump v. CASA Inc., could have important implications for opponents of the Trump administration's efforts to overhaul the federal workforce, slash agency grants and scrap environmental protections, and who have relied on judges to block these changes.
Yahoo
31-01-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
What to know about the legal challenges to Trump's executive actions
President Trump's torrent of executive actions has spurred a flood of legal challenges seeking to thwart the president's efforts to reshape U.S. policy in his first days back in the White House. From Seattle to Boston and Concord, N.H., to Washington, D.C., judges have scheduled hearings in courtrooms across the country for the coming days where they will confront the first major legal battles of the new administration. The sweeping actions span immigration, gender protections and the functions of the federal bureaucracy. Here's where the legal challenges stand. Trump's effort to restrict birthright citizenship could set up a major clash at the Supreme Court. The high court has long interpreted the 14th Amendment to extend citizenship to all people born on U.S. soil with few exceptions, but Trump is making a push to prevent that guarantee from extending to children born to parents without legal status. Trump's Justice Department has insisted the president's order is consistent with those precedents, latching onto how the Amendment only applies to people 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States. The order has been met with at least seven separate lawsuits, which all claim it violates the amendment or federal immigration law. U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, a Reagan appointee who oversees one of the cases, called Trump's action a 'blatantly unconstitutional order' as the judge temporarily blocked it at a hearing last week. Coughenour's order is only temporary. Next week, hearings will continue. A federal judge in Greenbelt, Md., will hear from CASA Inc. on Wednesday. The following day, Coughenor will hold another hearing in Seattle in the suit brought by four Democratic state attorneys general. The day after that, a judge in Boston will hear two separate challenges being brought by 18 other Democratic-led states and a group of private organizations. And on Feb. 10, a judge in Concord, N.H. will consider the American Civil Liberties Union's challenge. When asked on Thursday how the cases might fare once they reach the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority including three Trump appointed during his first time, Trump said he was confident the majority of the high court would vote in his favor to uphold the executive order. Transgender Americans affected by Trump's executive orders barring them from serving openly in the military and being housed in prisons aligned with their gender identities have also taken legal action against the administration. Two LGBTQ rights groups, on behalf of six active service members and two people seeking enlistment, challenged Trump's directive to deem transgender troops as physically or mentally incapable of service as a violation of the Constitution's equal protection clause. Separately, an incarcerated transgender woman sued the administration over Trump's order requiring the Federal Bureau of Prisons to house transgender inmates according to their sex at birth and preventing prisoners from accessing gender-affirming medical care. The transgender woman in that case, identified in court documents under the pseudonym Maria Moe, asked a federal judge Sunday to block the order from taking effect. The White House budget office earlier this week issued a directive to freeze federal assistance while reviewing whether spending aligns with Trump's agenda, drawing quick legal challenges from potentially affected nonprofits, public health groups and Democratic states. The nonprofits and public health groups sued first, contending they'd suffer 'imminent injury' should the order stand. On Tuesday, minutes before the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) order was set to go into effect, a federal judge temporarily blocked it. But the next day, the OMB rescinded the order, via a memo. Then, the White House said that rescission did not actually halt the federal funding freeze. The apparent contradiction created further widespread confusion. The 22 Democratic states and Washington, D.C. that sued over the funding freeze order — led by New York Attorney General Letitia James, called the policy 'reckless, dangerous, illegal and unconstitutional.' They argued during a court hearing Wednesday that the order should still be frozen by the courts because the Trump administration said the memo that rescinded the order would not hamper its actual effect – though it remains unclear which federal programs are actually impacted. A federal judge in Rhode Island overseeing the case signaled he's inclined to freeze the order, despite the order being rescinded. The states submitted a proposed court order Wednesday evening, and the judge gave the Justice Department 24 hours to submit any final opposition. At least three lawsuits have been filed over Trump's order creating a new class of federal employee, Schedule F, which would allow those workers to be hired and fired with ease like political appointees. The challenges, brought by federal employee unions and a worker alliance, contend that Trump's order threatens protections given to federal employees by Congress. They see the classification as an attempt to politicize bureaucratic roles. 'This scheme seeks to put politics over professionalism, contrary to the laws and values that have defined our career civil service for more than a century,' lawyers for the American Federation of Government Employees and AFL-CIO wrote in their complaint. Trump's new Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, came under legal challenges within minutes of the president taking the oath. Trump has announced ambitious plans for the new group, led by Space X CEO Elon Musk, to slash trillions in government spending. Three lawsuits are seeking to stop DOGE's operations over allegations it is required to comply with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which mandates various transparency requirements. The cases are each led by progressive consumer watchdog Public Citizen, the American Public Health Association and National Security Counselors, a public interest law firm. Each lawsuit was filed in D.C.'s federal district court and assigned to Judge Jia Cobb, a Biden appointee. The plaintiffs have not yet filed any motion seeking an emergency intervention. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
31-01-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
What to know about the legal challenges to Trump's executive actions
President Trump's torrent of executive actions has spurred a flood of legal challenges seeking to thwart the president's efforts to reshape U.S. policy in his first days back in the White House. From Seattle to Boston and Concord, N.H., to Washington, D.C., judges have scheduled hearings in courtrooms across the country for the coming days where they will confront the first major legal battles of the new administration. The sweeping actions span immigration, gender protections and the functions of the federal bureaucracy. Here's where the legal challenges stand. Birthright citizenship Trump's effort to restrict birthright citizenship could set up a major clash at the Supreme Court. The high court has long interpreted the 14th Amendment to extend citizenship to all people born on U.S. soil with few exceptions, but Trump is making a push to prevent that guarantee from extending to children born to parents without legal status. Trump's Justice Department has insisted the president's order is consistent with those precedents, latching onto how the Amendment only applies to people 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States. The order has been met with at least seven separate lawsuits, which all claim it violates the amendment or federal immigration law. U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, a Reagan appointee who oversees one of the cases, called Trump's action a 'blatantly unconstitutional order' as the judge temporarily blocked it at a hearing last week. Coughenour's order is only temporary. Next week, hearings will continue. A federal judge in Greenbelt, Md., will hear from CASA Inc. on Wednesday. The following day, Coughenor will hold another hearing in Seattle in the suit brought by four Democratic state attorneys general. The day after that, a judge in Boston will hear two separate challenges being brought by 18 other Democratic-led states and a group of private organizations. And on Feb. 10, a judge in Concord, N.H. will consider the American Civil Liberties Union's challenge. When asked on Thursday how the cases might fare once they reach the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority including three Trump appointed during his first time, Trump said he was confident the majority of the high court would vote in his favor to uphold the executive order. Gender Transgender Americans affected by Trump's executive orders barring them from serving openly in the military and being housed in prisons aligned with their gender identities have also taken legal action against the administration. Two LGBTQ rights groups, on behalf of six active service members and two people seeking enlistment, challenged Trump's directive to deem transgender troops as physically or mentally incapable of service as a violation of the Constitution's equal protection clause. Separately, an incarcerated transgender woman sued the administration over Trump's order requiring the Federal Bureau of Prisons to house transgender inmates according to their sex at birth and preventing prisoners from accessing gender-affirming medical care. The transgender woman in that case, identified in court documents under the pseudonym Maria Moe, asked a federal judge Sunday to block the order from taking effect. Funding freeze The White House budget office earlier this week issued a directive to freeze federal assistance while reviewing whether spending aligns with Trump's agenda, drawing quick legal challenges from potentially affected nonprofits, public health groups and Democratic states. The nonprofits and public health groups sued first, contending they'd suffer 'imminent injury' should the order stand. On Tuesday, minutes before the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) order was set to go into effect, a federal judge temporarily blocked it. But the next day, the OMB rescinded the order, via a memo. Then, the White House said that rescission did not actually halt the federal funding freeze. The apparent contradiction created further widespread confusion. The 22 Democratic states and Washington, D.C. that sued over the funding freeze order — led by New York Attorney General Letitia James, called the policy 'reckless, dangerous, illegal and unconstitutional.' They argued during a court hearing Wednesday that the order should still be frozen by the courts because the Trump administration said the memo that rescinded the order would not hamper its actual effect – though it remains unclear which federal programs are actually impacted. A federal judge in Rhode Island overseeing the case signaled he's inclined to freeze the order, despite the order being rescinded. The states submitted a proposed court order Wednesday evening, and the judge gave the Justice Department 24 hours to submit any final opposition. Civil service protections At least three lawsuits have been filed over Trump's order creating a new class of federal employee, Schedule F, which would allow those workers to be hired and fired with ease like political appointees. The challenges, brought by federal employee unions and a worker alliance, contend that Trump's order threatens protections given to federal employees by Congress. They see the classification as an attempt to politicize bureaucratic roles. 'This scheme seeks to put politics over professionalism, contrary to the laws and values that have defined our career civil service for more than a century,' lawyers for the American Federation of Government Employees and AFL-CIO wrote in their complaint. DOGE Trump's new Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, came under legal challenges within minutes of the president taking the oath. Trump has announced ambitious plans for the new group, led by Space X CEO Elon Musk, to slash trillions in government spending. Three lawsuits are seeking to stop DOGE's operations over allegations it is required to comply with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which mandates various transparency requirements. The cases are each led by progressive consumer watchdog Public Citizen, the American Public Health Association and National Security Counselors, a public interest law firm. Each lawsuit was filed in D.C.'s federal district court and assigned to Judge Jia Cobb, a Biden appointee. The plaintiffs have not yet filed any motion seeking an emergency intervention.
