Reply With Quote
dp
dp
You and Justice Sotomayor should probably read up on the "Plenary Power Doctrine." as it give Congress and the Executive Branch broad authority over immigration matters, including deportation...as established in Fong Yue Ting v. United States, in 1893, (holding deportation is civil, not criminal, matter with different cons utional standards). Zadvydas v. Davis, in 2001, acknowledged the government could remove illegal immigrants to any country willing to accept them. And, Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, in 2020, where the court held limiting judicial review of expedited removal procedures does not violate the cons ution.
Lol
look up non-refoulement
sending people to countries they're not from -- let alone war-torn holes and countries where they face harm and persecution -- isn't deportation, it's a crime
that's not orderly immigration, hoss
SCOTUS grants emergency equitable relief without a word explaining why
Biden couldn't alter the terms of student loans, but Trump can illegally dismantle the Department of Education
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...a1203_pol1.pdfJUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE KAGAN and JUSTICE JACKSON join, dissenting.
This case arises out of the President’s unilateral efforts to eliminate a Cabinet-level agency established by Congress nearly half a century ago: the Department of Education. As Congress mandated, the Department plays a vital role in this Nation’s education system, safeguarding equal access to learning and channeling billions of dollars to schools and students across the country each year.
Only Congress has the power to abolish the Department. The Executive’s task, by contrast, is to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” U. S. Const., Art. II, §3. Yet, by executive fiat, the President ordered the Secretary of Education to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure 2 MCMAHON v. NEW YORK SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting of the Department.” Exec. Order No. 14242, 90 Fed. Reg. 13679 (2025). Consistent with that Executive Order, Secretary Linda McMahon gutted the Department’s work force, firing over 50 percent of its staff overnight. In her own words, that mass termination served as “the first step on the road to a total shutdown” of the Department. Dept. of Ed., Press Release (Mar. 11, 2025); infra, at 7.
When the Executive publicly announces its intent to break the law, and then executes on that promise, it is the Judiciary’s duty to check that lawlessness, not expedite it. Two lower courts rose to the occasion, preliminarily enjoining the mass firings while the litigation remains ongoing. Rather than maintain the status quo, however, this Court now intervenes, lifting the injunction and permitting the Government to proceed with dismantling the Department. That decision is indefensible. It hands the Executive the power to repeal statutes by firing all those necessary to carry them out. The majority is either willfully blind to the implications of its ruling or naive, but either way the threat to our Cons ution’s separation of powers is grave. Unable to join in this misuse of our emergency docket, I respectfully dissent.
The equities, too, cut against the Government. While “‘equity does not demand that its suitors shall have led blameless lives’” as to other matters, “it does require that they shall have acted fairly and without fraud or deceit as to the controversy in issue.” Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v. Automotive Maintenance Machinery Co., 324 U. S. 806, 814–815 (1945) (citing Keystone Driller Co. v. General Excavator Co., 290 U. S. 240, 245 (1933)). The Government has continued to press a plainly pretextual explanation for the mass firings in court, even as the Executive makes inconsistent statements to the public. See supra, at 12–13, and n. 14. That the majority sees fit to repay that obfuscation with emergency equitable relief is troubling.
The relative harms to the parties are also vastly disproportionate. While the Government will, no doubt, suffer pocketbook harms from having to pay employees that it sought to fire as the litigation proceeds, see App. 169a– Cite as: 606 U. S. ____ (2025) SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 19 170a, the harm to this Nation’s education system and individual students is of a far greater magnitude. The Department is responsible for providing critical funding and services to millions of students and scores of schools across the country. Lifting the District Court’s injunction will unleash untold harm, delaying or denying educational opportunities and leaving students to suffer from discrimination, sexual assault, and other civil rights violations without the federal resources Congress intended. The majority apparently deems it more important to free the Government from paying employees it had no right to fire than to avert these very real harms while the litigation continues. Equity does not support such an inequitable result.
* * * The President must take care that the laws are faithfully executed, not set out to dismantle them. That basic rule undergirds our Cons ution’s separation of powers. Yet today, the majority rewards clear defiance of that core principle with emergency relief. Because I cannot condone such abuse of our equitable authority, I respectfully dissent.
will probably up financial aid for college, too
https://www.vox.com/policy/402336/de...k-doge-schools
There were a couple cases during the first Trump administration where the Court ruled against him basically because it decided his legal argument was too embarrassing. The rise of the shadow docket has changed all that. When the conservatives don’t have to show their work, we get results like this.
Can POTUS unilaterally dismantle a US agency authorized by statute and funded in the normal legislative course by the US Congress, by illegally firing its personnel?
Neither argument, nor any explanation for lower courts appear in the ruling. No acknowledgment at all that two courts thought Trump was likely exceeding the power of his office.
Just a single word for the majority: granted
Last edited by Winehole23; 07-14-2025 at 06:48 PM.
There is zero difference between red hatted nazi’s spewing garbage maga conspiracies like pizzagate…
and
the 6 red hatted nazi’s that were installed by the heritage kunts to destroy our democracy from within…
I mean, fine if SCOTUS wants to help Trump burn everything to the ground
Just don't expect any respect
Since April 4, #SCOTUS has issued 15 rulings on 17 emergency applications filed by Trump (three birthright citizenship apps were consolidated).
It has granted relief to Trump ... in all 15 rulings.
It has written majority opinions in only 3.
Today's order is the 7th with no explanation *at all.*
https://www.lawdork.com/p/scotus-all...pt-dismantlingIt was Roberts, two short years ago, who held that then-president Joe Biden’s administration overstepped when his education secretary interpreted the “waive or modify“ language in the HEROES Act to include forgiving student loans.
That, Roberts wrote for the court’s 6-3 majority, was not allowed. Here was Roberts on June 30, 2023:
Two years and two weeks after that ruling over the word “waive,” the Roberts court gave the Trump administration the go-ahead — on the shadow docket and with no reasoning — to “effectively dismantle” the Education Department, all of the laws to the contrary be damned.
Wine with the dumb takes as usual...no wonder you dumb s are willing to double down on Harris in 2028...
BadMotorscooter with no take on anything
the fact that the supreme court is allowing the dismantling of the US government on the shadow docket should tell you something about their commitment to the rule of law
why shadow docket an d so many unsigned opinions?
it's calvinball
it also needs to be explained *why* they do this, which is a desire to avoid setting any kind of precedent that could be claimed by a future administration who does not share their ideological views
overturning precedent de facto via shadow docket, again
www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...By a 6-3 vote, SCOTUS lets Trump fire the Dem members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, who are protected against removal by statute.
Dissenting, Kagan says the majority is undertaking a “permanent transfer of authority” from Congress to the president.
Justice Kavanaugh would have granted certiorari before judgment -- he seems to think the better practice in a case like this is to resolve the status of the precedent before ruling, but of course he went along with the majority anyway
At least something got written down this time
like everyone at the time pointed out, the most likely result of SCOTUS's presidential immunity ruling was to grease the skids for bad faith actions and illegality committed by the executive branch
SCOTUS has handed the keys to dictatorship over to Donald Trump
“A rule for the ages.” This is what Justice Neil Gorsuch claimed the Supreme Court was deciding when it heard oral arguments on President Donald Trump's claim of “absolute immunity” in April 2024. Two months later, the court did indeed hand down such a rule, endorsing Trump’s view that a former president cannot be criminally indicted for “official acts” carried out during the course of his presidency.https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-...les-rcna220856The rationale for granting immunity was ostensibly to protect former presidents; without it, the court argued, prosecutions by current administrations of their predecessors “would quickly become routine.”
So much for that. President Trump’s latest accusations that former President Barack Obama committed “treason” in investigating Russia’s election interference in 2016 — accusations made by his own director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, and for which his attorney general has created an investigative “strike force” — shows that, far from deterring such prosecutions, the court’s “rule for the ages” has made them easier
As it stands, there is absolutely no downside to Trump not only to go after his predecessors, but to also order his intelligence and law enforcement authorities to fabricate “evidence” to substantiate his accusations. It may be true that if Trump’s Justice Department were to try to formally indict Obama, the charges would eventually be dismissed by a court on immunity grounds. But there is a long runway from investigation to formal charges, and investigations alone can harass and intimidate subjects, including former presidents. And if Trump’s officials can make up evidence of wrongdoing, they can certainly do so regarding allegedly “unofficial” acts, which would not have any immunity at all.
The only “protection” afforded by the perverse incentives in the Supreme Court’s immunity decision is for bad-faith actors in the Oval Office — something we are seeing play out in real time.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
