Department of Homeland Security v. New York: A Win for Commonsense

In what may come to be the most important decision out of Washington this week, the Supreme Court ruled that the DHS may enforce the ‘Public Charge’ rule to go into effect. That’s all well and good, but the important part is that Justice Gorsuch really blasted the practice of nationwide injunctions in his concurring opinion. Tyler O’Neil has more at PJ Media.

“Today the Court (rightly) grants a stay, allowing the government to pursue (for now) its policy everywhere save Illinois. But, in light of all that’s come before, it would be delusional to think that one stay today suffices to remedy the problem. The real problem here is the increasingly common practice of trial courts ordering relief that transcends the cases before them. Whether framed as injunctions of ‘nationwide,’ ‘universal,’ or ‘cosmic’ scope, these orders share the same basic flaw—they direct how the defendant must act toward persons who are not parties to the case,” Gorsuch wrote. […]

“Equitable remedies, like remedies in general, are meant to redress the injuries sustained by a particular plaintiff in a particular lawsuit. When a district court orders the government not to enforce a rule against the plaintiffs in the case before it, the court redresses the injury that gives rise to its jurisdiction in the first place. But when a court goes further than that, ordering the government to take (or not take) some action with respect to those who are strangers to the suit, it is hard to see how the court could still be acting in the judicial role of resolving cases and controversies. Injunctions like these thus raise serious questions about the scope of courts’ equitable powers under Article III,” he explained.

“It has become increasingly apparent that this Court must, at some point, confront these important objections to this increasingly widespread practice. As the brief and furious history of the regulation before us illustrates, the routine issuance of universal injunctions is patently unworkable, sowing chaos for litigants, the government, courts, and all those affected by these conflicting decisions,” he wrote.

These nationwide injunctions create confusion and “tend to force judges into making rushed, high-stakes, low-information decisions.”

“The rise of nationwide injunctions may just be a sign of our impatient times. But good judicial decisions are usually tempered by older virtues,” the Supreme Court justice insisted.

“There are currently more than 1,000 active and senior district court judges, sitting across 94 judicial districts, and subject to review in 12 regional courts of appeal. Because plaintiffs generally are not bound by adverse decisions in cases to which they were not a party, there is a nearly boundless opportunity to shop for a friendly forum to secure a win nationwide,” Gorsuch explained.

Worse, it is possible that plaintiffs can win “conflicting nationwide injunctions.”

“If a single successful challenge is enough to stay the challenged rule across the country, the government’s hope of implementing any new policy could face the long odds of a straight sweep, parlaying a 94- to-0 win in the district courts into a 12-to-0 victory in the courts of appeal. A single loss and the policy goes on ice— possibly for good, or just as possibly for some indeterminate period of time until another court jumps in to grant a stay,” he noted. “And all that can repeat, ad infinitum, until either one side gives up or this Court grants certiorari.”

And that is the crux of the problem. The executive can not exercise its governance because some US district court judge in some sh*thole district who is beholden to the other party issues a stay to whatever policy it is (and this could easily go either way) and then enjoins it on the entire country.

It’s a method to destroy the rule of law and transfer sovereignty to unelected judges. It is, I think, not only a tyrannical practice but prima facie a case of the judicial wildly overstepping its bounds. One way or another, it must be curtailed, and soon.

Justice Gorsuch is proving to be a stalwart conservative/originalist member of the court, I think.

About NEO
Lineman, Electrician, Industrial Control technician, Staking Engineer, Inspector, Quality Assurance Manager, Chief Operations Officer

11 Responses to Department of Homeland Security v. New York: A Win for Commonsense

  1. audremyers says:

    I hate it (wink) when you make me do my homework! I’ve heard about ‘green cards’ my whole life but never really knew anything about them. So, I read the link in your article (homework assignment one) and when I wasn’t any more clear about my understanding, went to the internet (homework assignment two) and found this information https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/difference-between-us-green-card-us-citizenship.html

    So now the article makes sense to me – you know, the dumb one in the group, lol!

    Liked by 1 person

  2. the unit says:

    Yeah, a win for common sense.
    Speaking of SMH stuff, been reading comments at pretty reliable sites as TH and PL that McConnell is letting like 200 House passed bills sit on his desk and not taken into consideration by the Senate. Heard similar reports when Reid was there. Maybe it was like 400 bills.
    Regardless of who’s in charge, why do we need so many new laws time and time again? Why does my nose itch while getting my teeth cleaned? Yeah, I do still have some, most of them actually, and pretty healthy. Like Audre says…”You’re already on the high side, unit.” 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

    • NEO says:

      That is an excellent question. Why do we need Congress more than maybe 90 days a year? Any law we really needed was passed probably 150 years ago. Go home and shut up. 🙂

      You’re lucky, wish I did. 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

      • the unit says:

        They ought to be able to just stay home and tweet it out. 🙂
        I had an aunt who had perfect teeth her whole life. She’s the one who gave me a pair of her old jeans when I was a teen…with the zipper in the back. Good jeans, I guess. 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.