Courts Can’t Stop Trump Now

00:21:03
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsRWDS3-0LQ

Zusammenfassung

TLDREl vídeo analitza la decisió de la Cort Suprema en el cas Trump contra CASA, que limita la capacitat dels tribunals per emetre ordres de restricció nacionals. Aquesta decisió afecta la ciutadania per naixement, permetent que l'ordre executiva de Trump entri en vigor en 28 estats, creant desigualtats legals. La decisió es basa en la idea que els tribunals només poden bloquejar lleis dins de la seva jurisdicció, la qual cosa pot resultar en un sistema legal fragmentat on els drets depenen de la ubicació. Això pot facilitar que el president actuï de manera inconstitucional sense conseqüències immediates, i posa una càrrega addicional sobre els demandants individuals per defensar els seus drets.

Mitbringsel

  • ⚖️ La decisió de la Cort Suprema limita les ordres de restricció nacionals.
  • 📍 Els drets constitucionals poden variar segons la ubicació geogràfica.
  • 👶 L'ordre executiva de Trump afecta la ciutadania per naixement.
  • ⚠️ Pot crear un sistema legal de desigualtat sistèmica.
  • 💼 Les famílies han de lluitar individualment per protegir els seus drets.

Zeitleiste

  • 00:00:00 - 00:05:00

    El vídeo alerta sobre una decisió del Tribunal Suprem que limita la capacitat dels jutjats federals per bloquejar ordres executius del president Trump, afectant els drets constitucionals dels ciutadans segons el seu codi postal. Aquesta decisió permetrà que l'ordre executiu de Trump sobre la ciutadania dels fills de pares sense documents entri en vigor en 28 estats, creant una desigualtat legal entre diferents jurisdiccions.

  • 00:05:00 - 00:10:00

    S'explica que els jutjats federals han exercit tradicionalment el seu poder equitatiu per bloquejar lleis federals inconstitucionals a nivell nacional. La decisió del Tribunal Suprem en el cas Trump contra CASA limita aquesta capacitat, permetent que les ordres inconstitucionals siguin aplicades en algunes àrees mentre que en altres són bloquejades, creant un panorama legal desigual.

  • 00:10:00 - 00:15:00

    El vídeo analitza la història de la ciutadania per naixement i com l'ordre executiu de Trump desafia aquest principi. Els demandants han presentat diverses demandes contra l'ordre, que han estat bloquejades per jutjats inferiors, però el Tribunal Suprem ha decidit que aquestes ordres de bloqueig excedeixen l'autoritat equitativa dels jutjats federals, limitant-les a les parts implicades en el litigi.

  • 00:15:00 - 00:21:03

    Finalment, es discuteix la reacció a la decisió del Tribunal Suprem, amb crítiques que argumenten que aquesta crea un sistema legal desigual i que els drets constitucionals depenen de la ubicació geogràfica. S'anticipa que es presentaran accions legals a nivell nacional per desafiar l'ordre executiu, i es destaca la importància de tenir informació legal precisa i fiable.

Mehr anzeigen

Mind Map

Video-Fragen und Antworten

  • Què és el cas Trump contra CASA?

    És una decisió de la Cort Suprema que limita la capacitat dels tribunals per emetre ordres de restricció nacionals.

  • Quina és la implicació de la decisió sobre els drets constitucionals?

    Els drets constitucionals poden variar segons la ubicació geogràfica, creant desigualtats legals.

  • Quina ordre executiva va emetre Trump?

    Trump va emetre una ordre executiva que exclou la ciutadania per naixement a nens de pares no documentats.

  • Què significa la decisió per a les famílies afectades?

    Algunes famílies podran estar protegides mentre que d'altres no, depenent de la seva ubicació.

  • Quines són les conseqüències a llarg termini d'aquesta decisió?

    Pot conduir a un paisatge legal de desigualtat sistèmica i dificultar la protecció dels drets constitucionals.

Weitere Video-Zusammenfassungen anzeigen

Erhalten Sie sofortigen Zugang zu kostenlosen YouTube-Videozusammenfassungen, die von AI unterstützt werden!
Untertitel
en
Automatisches Blättern:
  • 00:00:00
    This is a five alarm code red brace
  • 00:00:02
    yourself for impact disaster for anyone
  • 00:00:04
    that cares about constitutional rights.
  • 00:00:06
    So far, federal courts have been the
  • 00:00:07
    only half successful check on President
  • 00:00:09
    Trump's unconstitutional
  • 00:00:10
    authoritarianism. And now it seems like
  • 00:00:14
    the Supreme Court just took away the
  • 00:00:16
    court's ability to stop the president
  • 00:00:17
    from doing all kinds of illegal stuff.
  • 00:00:20
    And the Supreme Court just made your
  • 00:00:21
    constitutional rights contingent on your
  • 00:00:22
    zip code. You might recall that in
  • 00:00:24
    January, President Trump issued an
  • 00:00:25
    executive order directing federal
  • 00:00:27
    agencies to stop recognizing the US
  • 00:00:29
    citizenship of children born to
  • 00:00:30
    undocumented or temporary status
  • 00:00:32
    parents. District courts in Seattle,
  • 00:00:34
    Boston, and Baltimore enjoin the policy,
  • 00:00:36
    citing a century of Supreme Court
  • 00:00:38
    president, affirming birthright
  • 00:00:39
    citizenship. Their injunctions applied
  • 00:00:41
    nationwide, prohibiting the government
  • 00:00:42
    from enforcing the birthright
  • 00:00:43
    citizenship order against everyone while
  • 00:00:45
    the cases made their way up to the
  • 00:00:47
    Supreme Court. However, in a 6-3 ruling,
  • 00:00:49
    the Supreme Court decided these
  • 00:00:50
    injunctions, quote, likely exceed the
  • 00:00:52
    equitable authority Congress has granted
  • 00:00:53
    to federal courts. So, the court granted
  • 00:00:55
    Trump's application to partially stay
  • 00:00:57
    the injunctions. As a result, Trump's
  • 00:00:58
    order is going to become effective in 28
  • 00:01:00
    states within 30 days. And without the
  • 00:01:02
    ability to enjoin the executive branch,
  • 00:01:04
    it's possible that every illegal thing
  • 00:01:05
    the president orders will go into effect
  • 00:01:07
    unless and until the Supreme Court
  • 00:01:09
    finally weighs in, which can take years,
  • 00:01:11
    if the Supreme Court even dains to take
  • 00:01:14
    up the case. Now, the court insists this
  • 00:01:15
    is just a procedural fix. Courts can now
  • 00:01:17
    only block laws within their
  • 00:01:18
    jurisdiction. But the Supreme Court's
  • 00:01:20
    decision in this case, Trump versus
  • 00:01:21
    CASA, means that the same federal policy
  • 00:01:23
    ruled unconstitutional in one
  • 00:01:25
    jurisdiction, can still be enforced in
  • 00:01:27
    another. This is going to create a
  • 00:01:28
    patchwork of federal laws where your
  • 00:01:30
    rights depend on where you live. A
  • 00:01:32
    family in Maryland might be protected
  • 00:01:33
    from Trump's policy because someone went
  • 00:01:35
    through the time and expense to file an
  • 00:01:37
    actual lawsuit and their court blocked
  • 00:01:39
    it, while a family in Texas remains
  • 00:01:41
    fully exposed to the same law even if
  • 00:01:43
    the underlying legal issues are
  • 00:01:45
    identical. And this decision puts the
  • 00:01:46
    onus on individual plaintiffs who often
  • 00:01:48
    have meager resources to file or join
  • 00:01:50
    lawsuits to protect their constitutional
  • 00:01:52
    rights and do so all the way to the
  • 00:01:53
    Supreme Court. And it encourages
  • 00:01:55
    President Trump with the full backing of
  • 00:01:56
    the Justice Department to fight every
  • 00:01:58
    lawsuit tooth and nail stalling for as
  • 00:02:00
    long as possible. And worse, if the
  • 00:02:02
    administration loses, maybe they just
  • 00:02:04
    won't appeal. Who cares if it's illegal
  • 00:02:05
    in one little district? Or maybe not
  • 00:02:07
    even in the full district. Maybe just
  • 00:02:08
    those particular plaintiffs. Fine. There
  • 00:02:10
    are 93 other federal districts
  • 00:02:12
    throughout the country and millions of
  • 00:02:14
    other potential plaintiffs. Ultimately,
  • 00:02:16
    this is going to lead to a legal
  • 00:02:17
    landscape of systemic inequality. And
  • 00:02:19
    we've already seen what happens when
  • 00:02:20
    basic rights end at the state line. It
  • 00:02:22
    was called Jim Crow. But today, we're
  • 00:02:24
    going to break down Trump versus CASA.
  • 00:02:25
    Now, to understand how we got here and
  • 00:02:27
    why the Supreme Court's ruling changes
  • 00:02:28
    so much, we have to start with the
  • 00:02:30
    basics. Federal district courts have
  • 00:02:31
    traditionally exercised their equitable
  • 00:02:33
    powers to enjoin the enforcement of
  • 00:02:34
    federal laws and policies, not only as
  • 00:02:36
    to the name plaintiffs, but broadly when
  • 00:02:39
    necessary to prevent widespread
  • 00:02:40
    constitutional harm. After all, laws or
  • 00:02:42
    executive orders apply nationally. So,
  • 00:02:44
    it makes sense that if they're
  • 00:02:45
    unconstitutional, a court would be able
  • 00:02:47
    to block their implementation
  • 00:02:49
    nationally. Now, where do courts or
  • 00:02:51
    where did courts get the power to issue
  • 00:02:53
    such sweeping decrees? Well, from the
  • 00:02:55
    broad equity authority granted to
  • 00:02:56
    federal district courts. A court's
  • 00:02:58
    equitable powers allow the courts to
  • 00:02:59
    craft remedies. that go beyond simply
  • 00:03:01
    awarding money. They can order people to
  • 00:03:03
    stop doing things, start doing things,
  • 00:03:04
    or block the government from enforcing
  • 00:03:06
    laws. And that's where injunctive relief
  • 00:03:08
    comes in. And there are several types of
  • 00:03:09
    injunctions depending on the stage of
  • 00:03:11
    the case and the urgency of the harm.
  • 00:03:12
    For short-term disputes, courts can
  • 00:03:14
    issue a temporary restraining order or
  • 00:03:16
    TTRO, which usually expires after 14
  • 00:03:18
    days. A court can also grant a
  • 00:03:20
    preliminary injunction, which preserves
  • 00:03:21
    the status quo until the end of the
  • 00:03:23
    litigation. And for a long-term
  • 00:03:24
    solution, courts can grant a permanent
  • 00:03:26
    injunction, which is ordered after a
  • 00:03:28
    final judgment on the merits. Now, Trump
  • 00:03:30
    versus CASA involved a dispute about
  • 00:03:31
    just how far these injunctions could go.
  • 00:03:33
    Nationwide injunctions enjoin the
  • 00:03:35
    government from enforcing the law or
  • 00:03:36
    policy against anyone in the country,
  • 00:03:38
    not just the plaintiffs who filed the
  • 00:03:39
    lawsuit. Now, there's no specific
  • 00:03:40
    federal statute that authorizes
  • 00:03:42
    specifically nationwide injunctions.
  • 00:03:44
    There's no statute that says they don't
  • 00:03:46
    have that power. But generally, the
  • 00:03:47
    power comes from a combination of the
  • 00:03:49
    Judiciary Act of 1789 and its successors
  • 00:03:51
    and the court's equitable powers under
  • 00:03:53
    Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 and
  • 00:03:55
    the Declaratory Judgement Act. Now, as
  • 00:03:56
    these sweeping injunctions have become
  • 00:03:58
    more frequent, they've drawn fire from
  • 00:03:59
    both Democratic and Republican
  • 00:04:01
    administrations on pragmatic rounds
  • 00:04:02
    because they give a single district
  • 00:04:03
    court the authority to stop the
  • 00:04:05
    implementation of a national policy. And
  • 00:04:07
    certain litigants figured this out. So,
  • 00:04:09
    that led to forum shopping where
  • 00:04:11
    litigants strategically filed lawsuits
  • 00:04:12
    in district where they know they would
  • 00:04:13
    get a favorable judge for their cause.
  • 00:04:15
    And this problem was best illustrated by
  • 00:04:17
    Judge Matthew Casmmer, the only judge in
  • 00:04:19
    the northern district of Texas Amarillo
  • 00:04:21
    division. Now, after the Supreme Court
  • 00:04:22
    reversed Row versus Wade, anti-abortion
  • 00:04:24
    litigants flocked to Judge Casmmer's
  • 00:04:26
    courtroom because they know how he would
  • 00:04:29
    rule on those issues. In 2023, Casmic
  • 00:04:31
    issued a nationwide injunction blocking
  • 00:04:33
    the FDA's approval of the abortion drug
  • 00:04:35
    known as Mephris. But the plaintiffs
  • 00:04:37
    there were guaranteed to get Judge
  • 00:04:39
    Casmik because he was the only judge in
  • 00:04:41
    that area. And coincidentally, on the
  • 00:04:42
    same day, Judge Rice of the US District
  • 00:04:44
    Court for the Eastern District of
  • 00:04:45
    Washington granted a broad injunction in
  • 00:04:47
    joining the FDA from changing its
  • 00:04:49
    guidance on Methopristo. Judge Rice's
  • 00:04:51
    decision applied to 17 states in
  • 00:04:53
    Washington DC. Now, these dueling
  • 00:04:54
    injunctions created confusion and chaos.
  • 00:04:56
    And all this happened before the courts
  • 00:04:58
    had opportunity to rule on the merits
  • 00:04:59
    after a full briefing and argument. But
  • 00:05:01
    in either case, very few people argued
  • 00:05:03
    that the solution was no nationwide
  • 00:05:05
    injunctions. The solution was obviously
  • 00:05:07
    don't have a division where only a
  • 00:05:09
    single judge is sitting. So, the
  • 00:05:11
    plaintiffs were guaranteed to get a
  • 00:05:12
    right-wing whack job. But while
  • 00:05:13
    nationwide injunctions were an important
  • 00:05:14
    tool to check federal power and
  • 00:05:16
    unconstitutional moves, judges also had
  • 00:05:18
    the ability to abuse their injunctive
  • 00:05:20
    powers. But that's why the limits placed
  • 00:05:22
    on injunctions were so important. And it
  • 00:05:23
    all started with the legal standard for
  • 00:05:25
    obtaining an injunction. Judges are not
  • 00:05:26
    supposed to hand them out like candy. A
  • 00:05:28
    preliminary injunction is an
  • 00:05:29
    extraordinary and drastic remedy. And to
  • 00:05:31
    get one, a party has to show they will
  • 00:05:32
    suffer irreparable injury if the court
  • 00:05:34
    doesn't act before the case is resolved
  • 00:05:35
    on the merits. And the injury typically
  • 00:05:37
    has to be something more than just loss
  • 00:05:38
    of income or money. And because they're
  • 00:05:40
    so coercive, courts are supposed to
  • 00:05:42
    tailor injunctions to be no more
  • 00:05:43
    burdensome than necessary, just enough
  • 00:05:45
    to give complete relief to the parties
  • 00:05:46
    in the case. But the practical reality
  • 00:05:48
    is that nationwide injunctions were
  • 00:05:50
    increasingly polarized. A study by
  • 00:05:52
    Harvard Law Review concluded that
  • 00:05:53
    nationwide injunctions are becoming more
  • 00:05:55
    frequent and they are quote
  • 00:05:56
    overwhelmingly issued by judges
  • 00:05:58
    appointed by presidents of the opposite
  • 00:05:59
    party from the administration whose
  • 00:06:01
    actions the judges are enjoining. Of the
  • 00:06:03
    78 nationwide injunctions issued during
  • 00:06:05
    the Trump and Biden administrations,
  • 00:06:07
    93.6 Six of the injunctions were issued
  • 00:06:09
    by judges appointed by a president of
  • 00:06:11
    the opposing political party. But if
  • 00:06:12
    you're going to sue the Trump
  • 00:06:13
    administration, you're going to want a
  • 00:06:14
    good lawyer. But if you want a great
  • 00:06:15
    lawyer, my law firm, the Eagle team can
  • 00:06:17
    help. If you've got in a car crash,
  • 00:06:18
    suffered a data breach, especially if
  • 00:06:19
    you got a data breach letter saying your
  • 00:06:20
    information might have been leaked, or
  • 00:06:22
    dealing with a workers's comp or social
  • 00:06:23
    security issue, we can represent you or
  • 00:06:25
    help find you the right attorney. And by
  • 00:06:26
    the way, we don't get paid unless you
  • 00:06:27
    do. So there's nothing upfront. So just
  • 00:06:28
    click on the link in the description or
  • 00:06:29
    call the phone number on screen for a
  • 00:06:31
    free consultation with my team. Cuz you
  • 00:06:32
    don't just need a legal team, you need
  • 00:06:34
    the legal team. And that brings us to
  • 00:06:35
    Trump versus Casa. Now, as Liz Dy
  • 00:06:38
    explained on the channel earlier this
  • 00:06:39
    year, for over a century, anyone born on
  • 00:06:41
    US soil has automatically been given
  • 00:06:43
    citizenship regardless of their parents
  • 00:06:45
    immigration or citizenship status.
  • 00:06:46
    Birthright citizenship is rooted in the
  • 00:06:48
    14th Amendment, which guarantees all
  • 00:06:50
    persons born or naturalized in the
  • 00:06:52
    United States and subject to the
  • 00:06:54
    jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the
  • 00:06:56
    United States. And the 1898 Supreme
  • 00:06:58
    Court case of United States versus Wong
  • 00:07:00
    Kim Arc established birthright
  • 00:07:01
    citizenship for children of all
  • 00:07:03
    immigrants. It is considered a bedrock
  • 00:07:05
    principle of constitutional law. But
  • 00:07:06
    while denying citizenship to children of
  • 00:07:08
    immigrants was once a fringe position,
  • 00:07:10
    it is now the official policy of the
  • 00:07:12
    Republican party. Here's President Trump
  • 00:07:14
    explaining that the 14th Amendment only
  • 00:07:16
    conferred citizenship on children of
  • 00:07:17
    enslaved people. That was meant for the
  • 00:07:19
    babies of slaves. It wasn't meant for
  • 00:07:21
    people trying to scam the system and
  • 00:07:23
    come into the country on a vacation. And
  • 00:07:26
    so on January 20th, 2025, President
  • 00:07:28
    Trump issued an executive order
  • 00:07:29
    excluding certain children of
  • 00:07:31
    non-citizens born in the United States
  • 00:07:32
    from birthright citizenship. Plaintiffs
  • 00:07:34
    impacted by the executive order filed
  • 00:07:36
    several lawsuits. The courts enjoined
  • 00:07:38
    Trump from enforcing the order because
  • 00:07:40
    it was very clearly unconstitutional.
  • 00:07:42
    And in this case, the Trump
  • 00:07:43
    administration did not ask the Supreme
  • 00:07:44
    Court to overturn Wong Kim Arc because
  • 00:07:46
    the court probably wouldn't do that. At
  • 00:07:48
    least that's what we think now. You
  • 00:07:50
    know, check back in a year. But instead,
  • 00:07:52
    Trump asked the justices to limit the
  • 00:07:54
    scope of injunctions entered by the
  • 00:07:56
    lower courts because they do not have
  • 00:07:57
    the power to grant relief to plaintiffs
  • 00:07:59
    who were not included in the lawsuits.
  • 00:08:01
    In response, the plaintiffs argued that
  • 00:08:03
    quote, "Being directed to follow the
  • 00:08:04
    law, as it has been universally
  • 00:08:06
    understood for over 125 years, is not an
  • 00:08:08
    emergency warranting the extraordinary
  • 00:08:10
    remedy of a stay of the injunction." But
  • 00:08:12
    Trump argued that, quote, "Years of
  • 00:08:14
    experience have shown that the executive
  • 00:08:15
    branch cannot properly perform its
  • 00:08:16
    functions if any judge anywhere can
  • 00:08:18
    enjoin every presidential action
  • 00:08:20
    everywhere." Now the court consolidated
  • 00:08:21
    the three cases but explicitly did not
  • 00:08:23
    rule on the constitutionality of
  • 00:08:25
    birthright citizenship and in a majority
  • 00:08:27
    opinion authored by Justice Barrett the
  • 00:08:29
    majority considered only the procedural
  • 00:08:31
    issue and the court held that the
  • 00:08:32
    injunctions quote likely exceeded the
  • 00:08:34
    equitable authority that Congress has
  • 00:08:35
    given to the federal courts under the
  • 00:08:37
    judiciary act and rule 65. So the
  • 00:08:39
    justices granted partial stays of the
  • 00:08:41
    district court orders limiting them to
  • 00:08:42
    what's necessary to give the plaintiffs
  • 00:08:44
    before the court complete relief. And in
  • 00:08:46
    reaching that ruling, Justice Barrett
  • 00:08:48
    considered the meaning of the Judiciary
  • 00:08:49
    Act of 1789. Quote, "Universal
  • 00:08:51
    injunctions were not a feature of
  • 00:08:53
    federal court litigation until sometime
  • 00:08:54
    in the 20th century, and they remained
  • 00:08:57
    rare until the turn of the 21st century,
  • 00:08:59
    which is true, but first of all, the
  • 00:09:01
    nature of power between the executive
  • 00:09:02
    branch and the legislative branch has
  • 00:09:04
    changed over time. Congress used to be
  • 00:09:06
    able to, you know, do stuff and pass
  • 00:09:08
    laws, and now for various reasons, it
  • 00:09:10
    can't. So, presidents mainly starting
  • 00:09:12
    with George W. Bush continuing with uh
  • 00:09:15
    President Obama, Trump, Biden, and now
  • 00:09:18
    Trump too started relying extensively on
  • 00:09:20
    executive orders for more and more
  • 00:09:21
    things. And secondly, when you're
  • 00:09:23
    dealing with a true authoritarian
  • 00:09:25
    president who everyone agrees signed an
  • 00:09:27
    incredibly unconstitutional executive
  • 00:09:28
    order, which is not law, that abregates
  • 00:09:30
    birthright citizenship as well as a
  • 00:09:32
    whole bunch of other completely
  • 00:09:33
    unconstitutional executive orders. It
  • 00:09:35
    really seems like the default position
  • 00:09:36
    should be for federal courts to
  • 00:09:37
    temporarily enjoin that during the
  • 00:09:39
    course of the litigation. These are
  • 00:09:40
    executive orders where there isn't a
  • 00:09:42
    single American for whom the executive
  • 00:09:43
    order could be legally enforced. And it
  • 00:09:45
    really seems like Barrett's opinion is
  • 00:09:47
    originalism motivated to get to a
  • 00:09:49
    specific outcome. Since nationwide
  • 00:09:51
    injunctions did not exist in 1789, the
  • 00:09:53
    courts do not have the power to use them
  • 00:09:54
    now. And the majority held the quote
  • 00:09:56
    because the universal injunction lacks a
  • 00:09:58
    historical pedigree. It falls outside of
  • 00:10:00
    the bounds of the federal court's
  • 00:10:01
    equitable authority under the Judiciary
  • 00:10:03
    Act. Now, I find this reasoning to be
  • 00:10:05
    extremely unpersuasive. This gets into
  • 00:10:08
    some technical legalisms, but first,
  • 00:10:10
    federal judges power comes from multiple
  • 00:10:12
    statutes or laws that have been passed
  • 00:10:14
    over time as well as the constitution
  • 00:10:15
    itself. Now, originalism theoretically
  • 00:10:18
    seeks to define what lawmakers intended
  • 00:10:20
    the law to mean when it was passed. And
  • 00:10:22
    when you're interpreting statutes, you
  • 00:10:24
    generally don't look to English common
  • 00:10:26
    law because who cares what happened in
  • 00:10:29
    English common law because we passed the
  • 00:10:31
    frigin law to pass the law. So, you look
  • 00:10:33
    at the law itself. No. Second, Barrett
  • 00:10:36
    is just dead wrong on the history. When
  • 00:10:38
    you look at the common law and the
  • 00:10:40
    courts of England, you see that
  • 00:10:42
    equitable remedies were always intended
  • 00:10:44
    to be flexible to write wrongs that
  • 00:10:46
    courts of law couldn't address. And on
  • 00:10:48
    top of that, really, for technical
  • 00:10:50
    reasons, the distinction between courts
  • 00:10:52
    of equity and courts of law doesn't
  • 00:10:53
    really even matter in modern American
  • 00:10:55
    courts. But as Justice Stomayor points
  • 00:10:57
    out in her descent, courts of equity in
  • 00:10:59
    England often decided issues for
  • 00:11:02
    interested parties who were not party to
  • 00:11:04
    the actual suit before the court. That
  • 00:11:06
    was Barrett's main concern that the
  • 00:11:07
    universal injunctions bind parties who
  • 00:11:09
    were outside of the actual litigation
  • 00:11:11
    itself. But third, in any event,
  • 00:11:13
    equitable remedies are the original
  • 00:11:15
    flexible remedy. And as I mentioned, the
  • 00:11:17
    nature of the executive has changed over
  • 00:11:19
    time. And it makes total sense that the
  • 00:11:21
    nature of equitable remedies would
  • 00:11:23
    expand to address the expansion of
  • 00:11:25
    executive power. But a lot of what the
  • 00:11:26
    majority talked about was in terms of
  • 00:11:28
    what was necessary for complete relief
  • 00:11:30
    for the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs here
  • 00:11:31
    argued that they could only get complete
  • 00:11:32
    relief from the unconstitutional policy
  • 00:11:34
    if the injunctions applied to everyone.
  • 00:11:37
    Justice Barrett disagreed. Quote,
  • 00:11:38
    "Prohibiting enforcement of the
  • 00:11:39
    executive order against the child of an
  • 00:11:41
    individual pregnant plaintiff will give
  • 00:11:43
    that plaintiff complete relief. Her
  • 00:11:45
    child will not be denied citizenship.
  • 00:11:47
    extending that injunction to cover all
  • 00:11:49
    other similarly situated individuals
  • 00:11:51
    would not render her relief any more
  • 00:11:53
    complete. And although the plaintiffs
  • 00:11:55
    argued that universal injunctions quote
  • 00:11:56
    give the judiciary a powerful tool to
  • 00:11:58
    check the executive branch, Justice
  • 00:11:59
    Barrett countered that checking the
  • 00:12:01
    executive's power was not a legitimate
  • 00:12:03
    consideration in this instance. Quote,
  • 00:12:04
    "Federal courts do not exercise general
  • 00:12:06
    oversight of the executive branch. They
  • 00:12:08
    resolve cases and controversies
  • 00:12:09
    consistent with the authority Congress
  • 00:12:10
    has given them." Yeah, but the
  • 00:12:12
    judiciary's branch is to interpret the
  • 00:12:14
    laws, determine what's constitutional
  • 00:12:15
    and stop the executive from doing
  • 00:12:17
    unconstitutional stuff all the time. And
  • 00:12:19
    if the executive does something that's
  • 00:12:21
    illegal and unconstitutional with
  • 00:12:22
    respect to 10 million people, and you
  • 00:12:24
    only enjoin them from putting that into
  • 00:12:26
    effect for two people, then it's kind of
  • 00:12:29
    a pirick victory. But the thing is in
  • 00:12:31
    these cases, the government is a party
  • 00:12:33
    to the litigation. Why can the federal
  • 00:12:35
    court not enjoin that party who's before
  • 00:12:38
    the court and stop it from taking an
  • 00:12:40
    action across the entire country? And as
  • 00:12:43
    we'll talk about, Justice Kavanagh's
  • 00:12:44
    solution is that it's just going to be
  • 00:12:45
    the Supreme Court that deals with these
  • 00:12:47
    issues on the shadow docket. But if
  • 00:12:49
    we're really going to go down this legal
  • 00:12:51
    rabbit hole, if the lower courts can't
  • 00:12:53
    issue a universal injunction, why would
  • 00:12:55
    the Supreme Court be able to? And why
  • 00:12:57
    would the executive be bound by the
  • 00:12:59
    Supreme Court's decision outside of the
  • 00:13:01
    very litigants who are in front of the
  • 00:13:03
    court? because the upper and lower
  • 00:13:04
    federal courts share the same source of
  • 00:13:07
    authority. And of course, it's very
  • 00:13:09
    suspicious why the Supreme Court didn't
  • 00:13:10
    address this issue during President
  • 00:13:12
    Biden's term when district courts
  • 00:13:13
    routinely issued nationwide injunctions
  • 00:13:15
    that halted his COVID policies and
  • 00:13:17
    student load programs. For example, in
  • 00:13:18
    the past, Justice Gorsuch has been the
  • 00:13:20
    most outspoken opponent of nationwide
  • 00:13:22
    injunctions. And yet, he affirmed
  • 00:13:24
    universal injunctions against the Biden
  • 00:13:25
    administration at least 10 times,
  • 00:13:27
    according to research by Professor Steve
  • 00:13:28
    Ladic. In any event, as it stands now,
  • 00:13:30
    the executive order will become
  • 00:13:31
    effective in 28 states within 30 days.
  • 00:13:34
    The children it targets will be American
  • 00:13:36
    citizens in 22 states, where lower
  • 00:13:38
    courts block the order, but newborn
  • 00:13:39
    children in the other 28 states will be
  • 00:13:41
    basically stateless unless some
  • 00:13:43
    plaintiffs in those districts are able
  • 00:13:45
    to quickly file legal challenges in
  • 00:13:46
    every jurisdiction. And unfortunately,
  • 00:13:48
    the Supreme Court doesn't give the lower
  • 00:13:49
    courts a clear roadmap for how they are
  • 00:13:51
    determined what constitutes complete
  • 00:13:54
    relief. Must plaintiffs file lawsuits in
  • 00:13:56
    all 50 states and the District of
  • 00:13:57
    Columbia in order to ensure that every
  • 00:13:59
    newborn to foreign parents becomes an
  • 00:14:00
    American citizen? And what if the Trump
  • 00:14:02
    administration challenges the scope of
  • 00:14:04
    the injunctive relief in some of those
  • 00:14:05
    states? The appellet courts are bound to
  • 00:14:07
    follow Trump versus CASA so they could
  • 00:14:09
    stay the injunctions while Trump makes
  • 00:14:10
    his legal arguments. And during that
  • 00:14:12
    time, Trump could continue to inflict
  • 00:14:14
    constitutional injuries on plaintiffs
  • 00:14:15
    all over the country. So this is not a
  • 00:14:17
    recipe for judicial efficiency. And
  • 00:14:19
    critics of this decision point out that
  • 00:14:20
    this fracturing is exactly why
  • 00:14:22
    nationwide injunctions are sometimes
  • 00:14:24
    necessary. They prevent a patchwork of
  • 00:14:26
    different laws and to eliminate costly
  • 00:14:28
    and duplicative litigation. But the
  • 00:14:30
    answer of the majority in this case is
  • 00:14:31
    that plaintiffs should file nationwide
  • 00:14:33
    class action lawsuits. And this could be
  • 00:14:35
    a semi-reasonable workaround. But it
  • 00:14:37
    also assumes that the Supreme Court
  • 00:14:39
    allows them to go forward when it has
  • 00:14:41
    been extremely hostile to class actions
  • 00:14:42
    for some time. But at base to get a
  • 00:14:44
    nationwide injunction, plaintiffs will
  • 00:14:46
    now have to go through the somewhat
  • 00:14:47
    rigorous class certification process. To
  • 00:14:49
    certify a class action, plaintiffs have
  • 00:14:51
    to satisfy all four requirements of rule
  • 00:14:53
    23. And moving for rule 23 class
  • 00:14:55
    certification is both a fact and legal
  • 00:14:57
    issue, which is why moving for class
  • 00:15:00
    certification usually comes after
  • 00:15:01
    discovery in most cases. But to do so,
  • 00:15:03
    first plaintiffs have to prove that
  • 00:15:04
    there are so many people affected that
  • 00:15:06
    it's impractical to sue individually.
  • 00:15:08
    Second, there must be questions of law
  • 00:15:09
    or fact common to the class. Third, the
  • 00:15:11
    lead plaintiff's claims must be typical
  • 00:15:12
    of the class. Basically, their story has
  • 00:15:14
    to represent the group with no outliers
  • 00:15:16
    or special treatment. And fourth, the
  • 00:15:17
    name plaintiffs and their lawyers must
  • 00:15:19
    be ready to fairly and adequately
  • 00:15:21
    protect the interest of the class. So
  • 00:15:22
    that means no conflicts of interests and
  • 00:15:24
    other things. So going the class action
  • 00:15:26
    route is at best an impediment and at
  • 00:15:28
    worst a huge procedural roadblock that
  • 00:15:30
    could way a lot of these cases. And you
  • 00:15:32
    can argue this is a good thing, but the
  • 00:15:34
    practical reality is that the Supreme
  • 00:15:35
    Court is tightening the rules for
  • 00:15:37
    nationwide class actions at the same
  • 00:15:38
    time that they're going to make it
  • 00:15:39
    easier for the government to blatantly
  • 00:15:41
    violate people's rights. And it really
  • 00:15:42
    seems tonedeaf to what this particular
  • 00:15:44
    administration is doing in reality. And
  • 00:15:47
    of course, during oral argument, Trump
  • 00:15:48
    solicitor general, John Sauer, said the
  • 00:15:51
    administration would fight
  • 00:15:52
    classification on nationwide classes.
  • 00:15:54
    Meanwhile, justices Alto and Thomas
  • 00:15:56
    filed concurring opinions warning
  • 00:15:58
    district courts to strictly apply the
  • 00:15:59
    rules governing class actions. quote
  • 00:16:01
    lacks enforcement of those requirements
  • 00:16:02
    for third-party standing and class
  • 00:16:04
    certification would create a potentially
  • 00:16:06
    significant loophole to today's
  • 00:16:07
    decision. And in a concurring opinion,
  • 00:16:09
    Justice Kavanaaugh proposed another
  • 00:16:10
    solution for the problem of patchwork
  • 00:16:12
    rights. Just asked the Supreme Court for
  • 00:16:14
    more guidance. Kavanaaugh recognized
  • 00:16:15
    that it's important for federal rights
  • 00:16:16
    to apply uniformly to everyone. But he
  • 00:16:18
    says it's only the Supreme Court that
  • 00:16:20
    should be the ones that make that call.
  • 00:16:21
    He writes, quote, "This court should not
  • 00:16:23
    and cannot hide in the tall grass. When
  • 00:16:25
    we receive such an application, we must
  • 00:16:27
    grant or deny." He says the court's
  • 00:16:28
    decision will often serve as quote
  • 00:16:30
    guidance throughout the United States
  • 00:16:31
    until the issue is finally resolved. I
  • 00:16:33
    mean, sure, plaintiffs would definitely
  • 00:16:35
    welcome swift decisions on these major
  • 00:16:37
    constitutional issues, especially one
  • 00:16:39
    that's as clear as birthright
  • 00:16:41
    citizenship. But the Supreme Court
  • 00:16:42
    actually had discretion to consolidate
  • 00:16:43
    all the birthright citizenship cases and
  • 00:16:45
    decide them on the merits if it wanted
  • 00:16:47
    to. Had the court done so, all the
  • 00:16:49
    future litigation that we've been
  • 00:16:51
    talking about would have been avoided.
  • 00:16:53
    But instead, the court chose to make the
  • 00:16:54
    procedural rule that invites future
  • 00:16:55
    court inventions. Kavanaaugh is inviting
  • 00:16:57
    Trump and his critics to use the court's
  • 00:16:59
    emergency docket even more. So, one way
  • 00:17:01
    to look at this ruling is it's giving
  • 00:17:02
    way, way more power to the executive
  • 00:17:04
    while at the same time amassing more
  • 00:17:06
    power for itself, elevating it even more
  • 00:17:09
    above the lower district courts. Now,
  • 00:17:10
    the three dissenting justices said the
  • 00:17:12
    decision was a setback for civil rights
  • 00:17:14
    in some of the most scorching language
  • 00:17:16
    I've ever seen. They said that
  • 00:17:18
    nationwide injunctions were essential to
  • 00:17:20
    protect constitutional rights on a broad
  • 00:17:21
    scale. Justice Sotoayor focused on the
  • 00:17:23
    legal standard for granting injunctive
  • 00:17:25
    relief. She asked, quote, "What grave
  • 00:17:27
    harm does the executive face that
  • 00:17:28
    prompts a majority of this court to
  • 00:17:30
    grant it relief?" The answer, the
  • 00:17:31
    government says, is the inability to
  • 00:17:33
    enforce the citizenship order against
  • 00:17:34
    nonparties. For the majority, that
  • 00:17:36
    answer suffices. Uh, see, for example,
  • 00:17:39
    when a federal court enters a universal
  • 00:17:40
    jurisdiction against the government, it
  • 00:17:42
    improperly intrudes on a coordinate
  • 00:17:43
    branch of the government and prevents
  • 00:17:45
    the government from enforcing its
  • 00:17:46
    policies against nonparties. The
  • 00:17:48
    problem, however, is that the executive
  • 00:17:49
    branch has no right to enforce the
  • 00:17:51
    citizenship order against anyone. As the
  • 00:17:53
    executive itself once put it, the order
  • 00:17:55
    is unquestionably unconstitutional. It
  • 00:17:58
    defies logic to say that maintaining a
  • 00:17:59
    centuries long status quo for a few
  • 00:18:02
    months longer will irreparably injure
  • 00:18:04
    the government. The issue, the perceived
  • 00:18:05
    injury to the Trump administration is a
  • 00:18:07
    theme that Justice Soayor has raised in
  • 00:18:09
    several recent descents. And she
  • 00:18:11
    explains yet again how dubious this
  • 00:18:13
    analysis of harm really is. Quote, "The
  • 00:18:15
    majority's contrary position is
  • 00:18:16
    self-refuting. Suppose an executive
  • 00:18:18
    order barred women from receiving
  • 00:18:20
    unemployment benefits or black citizens
  • 00:18:21
    from voting. Is the government
  • 00:18:23
    irreparably harmed and entitled to
  • 00:18:25
    emergency relief by a district court
  • 00:18:26
    order universally enjoining such
  • 00:18:28
    policies? The majority apparently would
  • 00:18:30
    say yes. Justice Jackson wrote
  • 00:18:32
    separately to say, quote, "Today's
  • 00:18:33
    ruling allows the executive to deny
  • 00:18:35
    people rights, the founders plainly
  • 00:18:36
    wrote into our Constitution, so long as
  • 00:18:38
    those individuals have not found a
  • 00:18:40
    lawyer or asked a court in a particular
  • 00:18:42
    manner to have their rights protected.
  • 00:18:44
    This perverse burden shifting cannot
  • 00:18:46
    coexist with the rule of law." In
  • 00:18:47
    essence, the court has now shoved lower
  • 00:18:49
    court judges out of the way in cases
  • 00:18:51
    where executive action is challenged and
  • 00:18:53
    has gifted the executive with the
  • 00:18:54
    prerogative of sometimes disregarding
  • 00:18:56
    the law. As a result, the judiciary, the
  • 00:18:58
    one institution that is solely
  • 00:19:00
    responsible for ensuring our republic
  • 00:19:02
    endures as a nation of laws, has put
  • 00:19:04
    both our legal system and our system of
  • 00:19:05
    government in grave jeopardy. So now
  • 00:19:07
    what? Well, within hours of the
  • 00:19:09
    decision, several groups in this case
  • 00:19:11
    filed a nationwide class action
  • 00:19:12
    challenging the executive order. This
  • 00:19:14
    all but guarantees that the Supreme
  • 00:19:15
    Court will have to decide a major case
  • 00:19:17
    on whether nationwide classes should
  • 00:19:19
    have been certified. And then we'll find
  • 00:19:21
    out whether the Republican justices will
  • 00:19:23
    interpret the rules to allow nationwide
  • 00:19:25
    classes in cases like this or not. And
  • 00:19:28
    do we think this particular court based
  • 00:19:30
    on his Trump positive juristp prudence
  • 00:19:32
    will make it harder or easier to certify
  • 00:19:34
    nationwide class actions? Who knows? And
  • 00:19:36
    honestly, I don't know if this is a
  • 00:19:37
    nothing burger or the end of judicial
  • 00:19:39
    review of the executive. But this shows
  • 00:19:40
    why it's so important to get accurate
  • 00:19:42
    legal information from new sources that
  • 00:19:44
    you can trust. For example, you can see
  • 00:19:45
    that the story we're discussing today
  • 00:19:46
    was covered by over 130 sources with 13%
  • 00:19:49
    coming from the left, 56 from the
  • 00:19:51
    center, and 31% coming from the right.
  • 00:19:53
    And the differences couldn't be more
  • 00:19:54
    stark. On the left, sources say that the
  • 00:19:56
    court's ruling on universal injunctions
  • 00:19:57
    was absurd, furthering the country's
  • 00:19:59
    plunge into authoritarianism. In the
  • 00:20:01
    center, sources largely focused on
  • 00:20:02
    explaining what the ruling means for
  • 00:20:04
    legal challenges against the
  • 00:20:05
    administration or Trump personally. And
  • 00:20:06
    on the right, sources celebrated the big
  • 00:20:08
    win with headlines like another one
  • 00:20:09
    bites the dust. Because headlines and
  • 00:20:11
    coverage vary greatly depending on the
  • 00:20:13
    source. And that's why I love today's
  • 00:20:14
    sponsor, Ground News. The Nobel Peace
  • 00:20:16
    Center called Ground News an excellent
  • 00:20:17
    way to stay informed, avoid echo
  • 00:20:19
    chambers, and expand your worldview. And
  • 00:20:20
    I couldn't agree more because Ground
  • 00:20:22
    News gathers related articles from
  • 00:20:23
    around the world and across political
  • 00:20:24
    spectrum so you can see the bias and
  • 00:20:26
    compare coverage. Every story comes with
  • 00:20:28
    a quick visual breakdown of the
  • 00:20:29
    political bias, factuality, and
  • 00:20:30
    ownership of the sourc's reporting, all
  • 00:20:32
    backed by ratings from three independent
  • 00:20:33
    news monitoring organizations. One of my
  • 00:20:35
    favorite parts is their bias comparison
  • 00:20:37
    feature, which highlights specific
  • 00:20:38
    differences in reporting across the
  • 00:20:39
    political spectrum. And I also love
  • 00:20:40
    their blind spot feed, which shows you
  • 00:20:42
    stories that are underreported by either
  • 00:20:43
    side of the political spectrum. But all
  • 00:20:45
    this is why Ground is my favorite way to
  • 00:20:46
    get the news. And as a legal eagle, you
  • 00:20:48
    can save 40% off the ground news vantage
  • 00:20:50
    subscription by scanning the code on
  • 00:20:51
    screen or clicking the link down below.
  • 00:20:53
    This subscription gives you unlimited
  • 00:20:54
    access to every feature, including the
  • 00:20:55
    bias insight tool and the blind spot
  • 00:20:57
    feed. So sign up for ground news now and
  • 00:20:59
    after that click on this link over here
  • 00:21:00
    for more legal eagle or I'll see you in
Tags
  • Corte Suprema
  • Trump
  • Drets constitucionals
  • Ciutadania
  • Ordre executiva
  • Desigualtat legal
  • Injeccions nacionals
  • Sistema judicial
  • Drets humans
  • Política