🚨🚨Hawaii Judge MAF 🚨🚨
| hairless haunting stead | 06/27/25 | | hairless haunting stead | 06/27/25 | | cracking cuckold | 06/27/25 | | hairless haunting stead | 06/27/25 | | tripping 180 faggotry immigrant | 06/27/25 | | slate office macaca | 06/27/25 | | hairless haunting stead | 06/27/25 | | slate office macaca | 06/27/25 | | Avocado lettuce cumskin | 06/27/25 | | garnet parlor | 06/27/25 | | hairless haunting stead | 06/27/25 | | slate office macaca | 06/27/25 | | hairless haunting stead | 06/27/25 | | slate office macaca | 06/27/25 | | slate office macaca | 06/27/25 | | Pale Shaky Theater | 06/27/25 | | Irradiated angry step-uncle's house pervert | 06/27/25 | | Wild coral associate coldplay fan | 06/27/25 | | ungodly concupiscible business firm becky | 06/27/25 | | hairless haunting stead | 06/27/25 | | passionate nursing home ape | 06/28/25 | | exciting stage wrinkle | 06/27/25 | | Cruel-hearted forum | 06/27/25 | | Sickened Boyish Market Genital Piercing | 06/27/25 | | cracking cuckold | 06/27/25 | | Effete institution | 06/27/25 | | twisted twinkling uncleanness | 06/27/25 | | hairless haunting stead | 06/27/25 | | twisted twinkling uncleanness | 06/27/25 | | hairless haunting stead | 06/27/25 | | low-t heaven | 06/27/25 | | drunken blathering hall ceo | 06/27/25 | | Opaque territorial plaza | 06/27/25 | | razzle lodge nibblets | 06/27/25 | | hairless haunting stead | 06/27/25 | | big mint meetinghouse useless brakes | 06/27/25 | | learning disabled cerebral alpha | 06/27/25 | | clear shrine famous landscape painting | 06/28/25 | | low-t heaven | 06/27/25 | | hairless haunting stead | 06/27/25 | | drunken blathering hall ceo | 06/27/25 | | twisted twinkling uncleanness | 06/27/25 | | Razzle-dazzle crackhouse | 06/27/25 | | big mint meetinghouse useless brakes | 06/27/25 | | Cobalt Son Of Senegal Resort | 06/29/25 | | arousing coffee pot | 06/27/25 | | carmine home headpube | 06/27/25 | | Cruel-hearted forum | 06/27/25 | | Mind-boggling kitchen | 06/27/25 | | arousing coffee pot | 06/27/25 | | crimson excitant gas station | 06/27/25 | | razzle lodge nibblets | 06/27/25 | | lilac stain church building | 06/27/25 | | Sickened Boyish Market Genital Piercing | 06/27/25 | | big mint meetinghouse useless brakes | 06/27/25 | | cracking cuckold | 06/27/25 | | Indigo Impertinent State Hairy Legs | 06/27/25 | | cracking cuckold | 06/27/25 | | big mint meetinghouse useless brakes | 06/27/25 | | lime odious mood dragon | 06/27/25 | | low-t heaven | 06/27/25 | | vibrant misunderstood base really tough guy | 06/27/25 | | Nudist therapy | 06/28/25 | | exhilarant confused jewess parlour | 06/27/25 | | embarrassed to the bone crotch | 06/27/25 | | Irradiated angry step-uncle's house pervert | 06/27/25 | | razzle lodge nibblets | 06/27/25 | | arousing coffee pot | 06/27/25 | | chrome sexy box office mother | 06/27/25 | | Racy range | 06/27/25 | | Fragrant plum public bath | 06/28/25 | | Irradiated angry step-uncle's house pervert | 06/27/25 | | Aqua location striped hyena | 06/27/25 | | supple sneaky criminal | 06/27/25 | | olive appetizing garrison | 06/27/25 | | arousing coffee pot | 06/27/25 | | Racy range | 06/27/25 | | At-the-ready old irish cottage | 06/28/25 | | Sickened Boyish Market Genital Piercing | 06/27/25 | | Talking bateful station | 06/29/25 | | Indigo Impertinent State Hairy Legs | 06/27/25 | | arousing coffee pot | 06/27/25 | | arousing coffee pot | 06/27/25 | | hairless haunting stead | 06/27/25 | | arousing coffee pot | 06/27/25 | | garnet parlor | 06/27/25 | | Effete institution | 06/27/25 | | low-t heaven | 06/27/25 | | hairless haunting stead | 06/27/25 | | carmine home headpube | 06/27/25 | | low-t heaven | 06/27/25 | | hairless haunting stead | 06/27/25 | | Cobalt Son Of Senegal Resort | 06/27/25 | | Turquoise Locale Gaming Laptop | 06/27/25 | | low-t heaven | 06/27/25 | | Mildly autistic rough-skinned area pistol | 06/27/25 | | Effete institution | 06/27/25 | | Mildly autistic rough-skinned area pistol | 06/27/25 | | Effete institution | 06/27/25 | | Mildly autistic rough-skinned area pistol | 06/27/25 | | Sickened Boyish Market Genital Piercing | 06/27/25 | | slate office macaca | 06/27/25 | | hairless haunting stead | 06/27/25 | | low-t heaven | 06/27/25 | | Fragrant plum public bath | 06/27/25 | | Cobalt Son Of Senegal Resort | 06/27/25 | | Indigo Impertinent State Hairy Legs | 06/27/25 | | carmine home headpube | 06/27/25 | | garnet parlor | 06/27/25 | | Lake fanboi theater stage | 06/27/25 | | embarrassed to the bone crotch | 06/27/25 | | Irradiated angry step-uncle's house pervert | 06/27/25 | | Aqua location striped hyena | 06/27/25 | | Cobalt Son Of Senegal Resort | 06/29/25 | | Racy range | 06/27/25 | | Opaque territorial plaza | 06/27/25 | | arousing coffee pot | 06/27/25 | | Opaque territorial plaza | 06/27/25 | | Vigorous cordovan idea he suggested quadroon | 06/27/25 | | Mildly autistic rough-skinned area pistol | 06/27/25 | | Vigorous cordovan idea he suggested quadroon | 06/27/25 | | Aqua location striped hyena | 06/27/25 | | tan telephone | 06/28/25 | | aromatic fuchsia persian | 06/27/25 | | Aqua location striped hyena | 06/27/25 | | twisted twinkling uncleanness | 06/27/25 | | low-t heaven | 06/27/25 | | Opaque territorial plaza | 06/27/25 | | hairless haunting stead | 06/27/25 | | carmine home headpube | 06/27/25 | | Racy range | 06/27/25 | | vibrant misunderstood base really tough guy | 06/27/25 | | cracking cuckold | 06/27/25 | | arousing coffee pot | 06/27/25 | | Cobalt Son Of Senegal Resort | 06/27/25 | | Charismatic locus yarmulke | 06/28/25 | | big mint meetinghouse useless brakes | 06/27/25 | | Floppy rusted organic girlfriend weed whacker | 06/27/25 | | big mint meetinghouse useless brakes | 06/27/25 | | Jet puppy | 06/27/25 | | comical rigpig | 06/27/25 | | Indigo Impertinent State Hairy Legs | 06/27/25 | | Vigorous cordovan idea he suggested quadroon | 06/27/25 | | Effete institution | 06/27/25 | | Jet puppy | 06/27/25 | | slate office macaca | 06/27/25 | | low-t heaven | 06/27/25 | | Sickened Boyish Market Genital Piercing | 06/27/25 | | Fragrant plum public bath | 06/27/25 | | Irradiated angry step-uncle's house pervert | 06/27/25 | | Opaque territorial plaza | 06/27/25 | | Fragrant plum public bath | 06/27/25 | | Opaque territorial plaza | 06/27/25 | | Lake fanboi theater stage | 06/27/25 | | Fragrant plum public bath | 06/27/25 | | Lake fanboi theater stage | 06/27/25 | | Fragrant plum public bath | 06/27/25 | | Irradiated angry step-uncle's house pervert | 06/27/25 | | garnet parlor | 06/27/25 | | Lake fanboi theater stage | 06/27/25 | | Turquoise Locale Gaming Laptop | 06/27/25 | | garnet parlor | 06/27/25 | | Irradiated angry step-uncle's house pervert | 06/27/25 | | embarrassed to the bone crotch | 06/27/25 | | Rose trip center | 06/29/25 | | slate office macaca | 06/27/25 | | Opaque territorial plaza | 06/27/25 | | Lake fanboi theater stage | 06/27/25 | | Opaque territorial plaza | 06/27/25 | | exciting stage wrinkle | 06/27/25 | | Aqua location striped hyena | 06/27/25 | | hateful field | 06/27/25 | | Irradiated angry step-uncle's house pervert | 06/27/25 | | big mint meetinghouse useless brakes | 06/27/25 | | low-t heaven | 06/28/25 | | garnet parlor | 06/27/25 | | garnet parlor | 06/27/25 | | Opaque territorial plaza | 06/27/25 | | Turquoise Locale Gaming Laptop | 06/27/25 | | Racy range | 06/27/25 | | Opaque territorial plaza | 06/27/25 | | Jade Wonderful Internal Respiration Indian Lodge | 06/27/25 | | Fragrant plum public bath | 06/27/25 | | garnet parlor | 06/27/25 | | Hilarious cruise ship affirmative action | 06/28/25 | | Jade Wonderful Internal Respiration Indian Lodge | 06/28/25 | | low-t heaven | 06/28/25 | | Opaque territorial plaza | 06/28/25 | | Jade Wonderful Internal Respiration Indian Lodge | 06/28/25 | | Opaque territorial plaza | 06/28/25 | | Racy range | 06/28/25 | | big mint meetinghouse useless brakes | 06/27/25 | | Opaque territorial plaza | 06/27/25 | | big mint meetinghouse useless brakes | 06/27/25 | | Jet puppy | 06/28/25 | | lime odious mood dragon | 06/27/25 | | hateful field | 06/27/25 | | Jade Wonderful Internal Respiration Indian Lodge | 06/27/25 | | big mint meetinghouse useless brakes | 06/27/25 | | garnet parlor | 06/27/25 | | startling galvanic brethren juggernaut | 06/27/25 | | Indigo Impertinent State Hairy Legs | 06/27/25 | | Irradiated angry step-uncle's house pervert | 06/27/25 | | Pale Shaky Theater | 06/28/25 | | Opaque territorial plaza | 06/27/25 | | low-t heaven | 06/27/25 | | big mint meetinghouse useless brakes | 06/27/25 | | Jet puppy | 06/28/25 | | At-the-ready old irish cottage | 06/28/25 | | garnet parlor | 06/27/25 | | Lake fanboi theater stage | 06/27/25 | | Scarlet volcanic crater queen of the night | 06/27/25 | | Aphrodisiac University Roast Beef | 06/28/25 | | low-t heaven | 06/28/25 | | Pungent whorehouse voyeur | 06/28/25 | | Irradiated angry step-uncle's house pervert | 06/28/25 | | Ruby hospital doctorate | 06/28/25 | | low-t heaven | 06/28/25 | | abnormal antidepressant drug | 06/28/25 | | federal swashbuckling sanctuary wagecucks | 06/28/25 | | Curious Spot | 06/28/25 | | hairless haunting stead | 06/28/25 | | Irradiated angry step-uncle's house pervert | 06/28/25 | | Indigo Impertinent State Hairy Legs | 06/28/25 | | cheese-eating mexican property | 06/28/25 | | chrome sexy box office mother | 06/28/25 | | chrome sexy box office mother | 06/28/25 | | Cobalt Son Of Senegal Resort | 06/29/25 | | big mint meetinghouse useless brakes | 06/29/25 | | abnormal antidepressant drug | 06/28/25 | | Curious Spot | 06/28/25 | | olive appetizing garrison | 06/29/25 | | dull trailer park | 06/29/25 | | bisexual orchestra pit | 06/28/25 | | painfully honest stag film partner | 06/28/25 | | Translucent ticket booth | 06/28/25 | | hateful field | 06/28/25 | | Lake fanboi theater stage | 06/28/25 | | hateful field | 06/28/25 | | Irradiated angry step-uncle's house pervert | 06/28/25 | | big mint meetinghouse useless brakes | 06/29/25 | | Cobalt Son Of Senegal Resort | 06/29/25 | | Irradiated angry step-uncle's house pervert | 06/28/25 | | Pungent whorehouse voyeur | 06/28/25 | | Aphrodisiac University Roast Beef | 06/29/25 | | Cobalt Son Of Senegal Resort | 06/29/25 | | big mint meetinghouse useless brakes | 06/29/25 | | Pale Shaky Theater | 06/29/25 | | Irradiated angry step-uncle's house pervert | 06/29/25 | | Opaque territorial plaza | 06/29/25 | | Opaque territorial plaza | 06/29/25 | | Pale Shaky Theater | 06/29/25 | | At-the-ready old irish cottage | 06/29/25 | | Opaque territorial plaza | 06/29/25 | | carmine home headpube | 06/30/25 | | garnet parlor | 07/10/25 |
Poast new message in this thread
 |
Date: June 27th, 2025 10:26 AM Author: slate office macaca
The complete-relief inquiry is more complicated for the
state respondents, because the relevant injunction does not
purport to directly benefit nonparties. Instead, the District Court for the District of Massachusetts decided that a uni versal injunction was necessary to provide the States them selves with complete relief. See 766 F. Supp. 3d, at 288.14
The States maintain that the District Court made the right
call. See Opposition to Application in No. 24A886 (New Jer-
sey), at 31–39.
As the States see it, their harms—financial injuries and
the administrative burdens flowing from citizen-dependent
benefits programs—cannot be remedied without a blanket
ban on the enforcement of the Executive Order. See, e.g.,
id., at 9–11. Children often move across state lines or are
born outside their parents’ State of residence. Id., at 31, 35.
Given the cross-border flow, the States say, a “patchwork
injunction” would prove unworkable, because it would re-
quire them to track and verify the immigration status of the
parents of every child, along with the birth State of every
child for whom they provide certain federally funded bene-
fits. Ibid.
The Government—unsurprisingly—sees matters differ-
ently. It retorts that even if the injunction is designed to
benefit only the States, it is “more burdensome than neces-
sary to redress” their asserted harms. Califano, 442 U. S.,
at 702. After all, to say that a court can award complete
relief is not to say that it should do so. Complete relief is
not a guarantee—it is the maximum a court can provide.
And in equity, “the broader and deeper the remedy the
plaintiff wants, the stronger the plaintiff ’s story needs to
be.” S. Bray & P. Miller, Getting into Equity, 97 Notre
Dame L. Rev. 1763, 1797 (2022). In short, “[t]he essence of
equity jurisdiction has been the power of the Chancellor to
do equity and to mould each decree to the necessities of the
particular case.” Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U. S. 321, 329 19Cite as: 606 U. S. ____ (2025)
Opinion of the Court
(1944).
Leaning on these principles, the Government contends
that narrower relief is appropriate. For instance, the Dis-
trict Court could forbid the Government to apply the Exec-
utive Order within the respondent States, including to chil-
dren born elsewhere but living in those States. Application
in No. 24A884, at 23. Or, the Government says, the District
Court could direct the Government to “treat covered chil-
dren as eligible for purposes of federally funded welfare
benefits.” Ibid. It asks us to stay the injunction insofar as
it sweeps too broadly.
We decline to take up these arguments in the first in-
stance. The lower courts should determine whether a nar-
rower injunction is appropriate; we therefore leave it to
them to consider these and any related arguments.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5743734&forum_id=2#49053534)
|
 |
Date: June 27th, 2025 10:16 AM Author: garnet parlor
You left out a critical part tho
“The court has made it clear that it is not deciding whether the executive order is constitutional and instructed the district courts to "move expeditiously to ensure that, with respect to each plaintiff, the injunctions comport with this rule and otherwise comply with principles of equity."
https://x.com/scotusblog/status/1938600052621971665?s=46
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5743734&forum_id=2#49053492) |
Date: June 27th, 2025 10:24 AM Author: ungodly concupiscible business firm becky
ketanji patted on the head:
We will not dwell on JUSTICE JACKSON’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5743734&forum_id=2#49053523) |
 |
Date: June 27th, 2025 10:35 AM Author: cracking cuckold
the whole section on the jackson dissent is brutal
The principal dissent focuses on conventional legal terrain, like the Judiciary Act of 1789 and our cases on equity.
JUSTICE JACKSON, however, chooses a startling line of attack that is tethered neither to these sources nor, frankly,
to any doctrine whatsoever. Waving away attention to the
limits on judicial power as a “mind-numbingly technical
query,” post, at 3 (dissenting opinion), she offers a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush. In her telling, the fundamental role of courts is to “order everyone (including the
Executive) to follow the law—full stop.” Post, at 2; see also
post, at 10 (“[T]he function of the courts—both in theory and
in practice—necessarily includes announcing what the law
requires in . . . suits for the benefit of all who are protected
by the Constitution, not merely doling out relief to injured
private parties”); see also post, at 11, n. 3, 15. And, she
warns, if courts lack the power to “require the Executive to
adhere to law universally,” post, at 15, courts will leave a
“gash in the basic tenets of our founding charter that could
turn out to be a mortal wound,” post, at 12.
Rhetoric aside, JUSTICE JACKSON’s position is difficult to
pin down. She might be arguing that universal injunctions
are appropriate—even required—whenever the defendant
is part of the Executive Branch. See, e.g., post, at 3, 10–12,
16–18. If so, her position goes far beyond the mainstream
defense of universal injunctions. See, e.g., Frost, 93
N. Y. U. L. Rev., at 1069 (“Nationwide injunctions come
with significant costs and should never be the default remedy in cases challenging federal executive action”). As best
we can tell, though, her argument is more extreme still, because its logic does not depend on the entry of a universal
injunction: JUSTICE JACKSON appears to believe that the
reasoning behind any court order demands “universal adherence,” at least where the Executive is concerned. Post,
at 2 (dissenting opinion). In her law-declaring vision of the
judicial function, a district court’s opinion is not just persuasive, but has the legal force of a judgment. But see Haaland v. Brackeen, 599 U. S. 255, 294 (2023) (“It is a federal
court’s judgment, not its opinion, that remedies an injury”).
Once a single district court deems executive conduct unlawful, it has stated what the law requires. And the Executive
must conform to that view, ceasing its enforcement of thelaw against anyone, anywhere.17
We will not dwell on JUSTICE JACKSON’s argument, which
is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent,
not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this:
JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.
No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow
the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation—in fact, sometimes the law
prohibits the Judiciary from doing so. See, e.g., Marbury v.
Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803) (concluding that James Madison had violated the law but holding that the Court lacked
jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus ordering him to
follow it). But see post, at 15 (JACKSON, J., dissenting) (“If
courts do not have the authority to require the Executive to
adhere to law universally, . . . compliance with law sometimes becomes a matter of Executive prerogative”). Observing the limits on judicial authority—including, as relevant
here, the boundaries of the Judiciary Act of 1789—is required by a judge’s oath to follow the law.
JUSTICE JACKSON skips over that part. Because analyzing the governing statute involves boring “legalese,” post, at
3, she seeks to answer “a far more basic question of enormous practical significance: May a federal court in the United States of America order the Executive to follow the
law?” Ibid. In other words, it is unecessary to consider
whether Congress has constrained the Judiciary; what matters is how the Judiciary may constrain the Executive.
JUSTICE JACKSON would do well to heed her own admonition: “[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by
law.” Ibid. That goes for judges too.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5743734&forum_id=2#49053565) |
 |
Date: June 27th, 2025 2:46 PM Author: supple sneaky criminal
Is this the biggest smackdown on a fellow scotus justice ever?
Observing the limits on judicial authority—including, as relevant
here, the boundaries of the Judiciary Act of 1789—is required by a judge’s oath to follow the law.
JUSTICE JACKSON skips over that part. Because analyzing the governing statute involves boring “legalese,” post, at
3, she seeks to answer “a far more basic question of enormous practical significance: May a federal court in the United States of America order the Executive to follow the
law?” Ibid. In other words, it is unecessary to consider
whether Congress has constrained the Judiciary; what matters is how the Judiciary may constrain the Executive.
JUSTICE JACKSON would do well to heed her own admonition: “[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by
law.” Ibid. That goes for judges too.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5743734&forum_id=2#49054286) |
 |
Date: June 28th, 2025 12:28 PM Author: At-the-ready old irish cottage
it's not like any of this was 'gotcha' material. she could have supplemented, amended, changed, etc her dissent to address the criticisms
she must be so arrogant
made me think of her clerks. about her first four
The hires include Claire Madill, who has been working in Florida as a public defender, a role Jackson once served in, and who co-founded Law Clerks for Workplace Accountability, a group of current and former law clerks that argued for the judiciary to make changes to prevent workplace misconduct.
In an email, the University of Michigan Law School graduate said she was "incredibly honored and privileged to have been given this opportunity."
Two other hires clerked for Jackson previously: Kerrel Murray, in district court, and Natalie Salmanowitz, in the D.C. Circuit.
Murray is a Stanford Law School graduate and an associate professor at Columbia Law School who writes on constitutional law, election law and race and the law. Salmanowitz, a Harvard Law School graduate, is a law clerk at Hogan Lovells.
Jackson also is hiring Michael Qian, a Stanford law graduate and associate at Morrison & Foerster who earlier clerked for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died in 2020.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5743734&forum_id=2#49056169)
|
Date: June 27th, 2025 10:33 AM Author: arousing coffee pot
wait a second, is this what it looks like, actually a huge blow to nationwide injunctions??
Held: Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that
Congress has given to federal courts. The Court grants the Govern-
ment’s applications for a partial stay of the injunctions entered below,
but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary
to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue. Pp. 4–
26.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5743734&forum_id=2#49053550) |
 |
Date: June 27th, 2025 10:33 AM Author: arousing coffee pot
The issuance of a universal in-
junction can be justified only as an exercise of equitable authority, yet
Congress has granted federal courts no such power.
(These are from the syllabus)
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5743734&forum_id=2#49053556) |
 |
Date: June 27th, 2025 10:34 AM Author: arousing coffee pot
Wow it looks like it:
Such injunctions are sometimes called “nationwide injunctions,” re-
flecting their use by a single district court to bar the enforcement of a
law anywhere in the Nation. But the term “universal” better captures
how these injunctions work.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5743734&forum_id=2#49053564) |
Date: June 27th, 2025 11:00 AM Author: slate office macaca
Remember after SCOTUS got rid of Chevron deference in their Loper Bright decision last year? Everyone predicted it would change everything, but it has had no noticeable impact that I can see.
I expect plaintiffs will just use the twin loopholes of class actions and having states file these actions and things will continue pretty much as before.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5743734&forum_id=2#49053656) |
 |
Date: June 27th, 2025 7:45 PM Author: Lake fanboi theater stage
nah it has bootstrapped itself into a gay race communism dictatorship.
act as a crazy policy making body, pointing to everything from international law to ancient indian traditions to feelings as authority.
people get angsty, government considers appointing justices who aren't complete crackpots. supreme court decrees their appointment illegal.
amend the legislation - supreme court deems the supreme court act, a regular statute passed by parliament, to now be a defacto constitutional document and beyond parliament's authority to amend.
etc.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5743734&forum_id=2#49055061)
|
 |
Date: June 27th, 2025 2:21 PM Author: Aqua location striped hyena
Stone, formerly an associate at Williams & Connolly, said he is “incredibly excited” about clerking for Justice Jackson and credited numerous Law School faculty and staff members with guiding him through the clerkship process.
“It’s definitely a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and to say that I feel blessed would be an understatement,” he said. “I am fortunate to have a very strong community of mentors and supporters.”
https://magazine.law.duke.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/11/Clerks-2024-980x652.jpg
https://law.duke.edu/news/donovan-stone-20-clerk-us-supreme-court-associate-justice-ketanji-brown-jackson
“I feel like the luckiest lawyer in the country, and this opportunity means so much to me,” said Janes, who graduated from UVA’s J.D.-M.A. Program in History. “I’m a public defender with a background in legal history, and I am excited to clerk for a justice who herself was a public defender, and who so intelligently and honestly employs history to reason through our nation’s most intractable legal issues.”
https://www.law.virginia.edu/sites/default/files/styles/open_graph_image/public/images/janes-3000.jpg?h=ba5e7803&itok=WIftiFax
While at Columbia Law, Landry received the John Ordronaux Prize, awarded for the highest academic average in his graduating class, and the Emil Schlesinger Labor Law Prize.
https://www.law.columbia.edu/news/archive/joseph-r-landry-16-awarded-supreme-court-clerkship
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5743734&forum_id=2#49054204) |
 |
Date: June 28th, 2025 1:09 PM Author: Opaque territorial plaza
wouldn't the class action be part of the "likely to succeed" analysis?
if so, Hawaiian judges could do real damage to plaintiff-side class action work. the judges would invite COA slapdowns and maybe even a SCOTUS slapdown.
if i were a class action guy i would not want to see Norm Eisen amend 20-30 cases to make them class actions.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5743734&forum_id=2#49056274) |
Date: June 27th, 2025 3:29 PM Author: Indigo Impertinent State Hairy Legs
Instead, to the majority, the power-hungry actors are . . . (wait for it) . . . the district courts. See ante, at 1 (admonishing district courts for daring to “asser[t] the power” to order the Executive to follow the law universally).
Instead, to the majority, the power-hungry actors are . . . (wait for it) . . . the district courts. See ante, at 1 (admonishing district courts for daring to “asser[t] the power” to order the Executive to follow the law universally).
Instead, to the majority, the power-hungry actors are . . . (wait for it) . . . the district courts. See ante, at 1 (admonishing district courts for daring to “asser[t] the power” to order the Executive to follow the law universally).
Instead, to the majority, the power-hungry actors are . . . (wait for it) . . . the district courts. See ante, at 1 (admonishing district courts for daring to “asser[t] the power” to order the Executive to follow the law universally).
Instead, to the majority, the power-hungry actors are . . . (wait for it) . . . the district courts. See ante, at 1 (admonishing district courts for daring to “asser[t] the power” to order the Executive to follow the law universally).
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5743734&forum_id=2#49054442) |
Date: June 27th, 2025 3:48 PM Author: Opaque territorial plaza
legal schoalar says that Kagan's position on nationwide injunctions "just can't be right."
https://x.com/CawthornforNC/status/1938611433043800096
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5743734&forum_id=2#49054513) |
 |
Date: June 27th, 2025 8:05 PM Author: Lake fanboi theater stage
you didn't see the weird naked tape?
he was a passenger in the car.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5743734&forum_id=2#49055110)
|
Date: June 28th, 2025 4:27 AM Author: Aphrodisiac University Roast Beef
Jackson: “the Judiciary—the one institution that is solely responsible for ensuring our Republic endures” …
What the hell is she talking about
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5743734&forum_id=2#49055631)
|
Date: June 29th, 2025 7:40 PM Author: Opaque territorial plaza
ACB's muse on this issue, a prof at Notre Dame Law, offers this NYT op-ed. libs are Yosemite Samming about it.
====
Opinion
Guest Essay
The Supreme Court Is Watching Out for the Courts, Not for Trump
June 28, 2025
By Samuel Bray
Mr. Bray is a law professor at the University of Notre Dame.
On Friday, the Supreme Court decided the birthright citizenship cases — except they aren’t really about birthright citizenship. In an executive order issued in January, President Trump wanted to redefine citizenship in the United States. The court’s decision in Trump v. CASA does not address that effort; it is rather about the scope of remedies given by the federal courts.
In the decision, a 6-3 majority of the court held that the federal courts have no authority to issue universal injunctions, which are court orders that control how the government acts toward everyone in the country, not just the parties in the case. The high court’s decision has the potential to reshape the relationship between the federal judiciary and the executive branch — and the court got it right.
In rejecting the practice of universal injunctions, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the proper role of the federal courts within our constitutional system.
What the justices got right was a shift in thinking about what Americans want our courts to do, and especially how they should operate in a democracy under pressure.
There has been a shift toward a new model of judicial interaction with the executive branch. This new model has been marked by broader remedies, faster timelines, fewer trials and less factual development — which is to say, less time devoted to discovery and oral argument in lower courts. It has also meant more extreme forum-shopping for favorable judges — when plaintiffs seek out a specific judge whom they wish to hear their case, presumably because of how they expect that judge to rule.
Removing universal injunctions does not change all of that — it is not like the last Jenga block that makes the tower fall. But the universal injunction has supported and intensified all those other developments. Removing it gives the courts a chance to reset, and to shift toward the more deliberative mode in which they do their best work.
Since 2015 and the meteoric rise of universal injunctions, Federal District Courts have stepped in to stop almost every major presidential initiative, from President Barack Obama’s DACA expansion (which has protected thousands of young immigrants from deportation) to President Trump’s travel ban, and from President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness to President Trump’s order purporting to revoke birthright citizenship.
In line with previous precedents, the court said that federal courts have the power to give traditional equitable remedies, which emphasize fairness and justice for the parties to the case and are based on the practice of the English Court of Chancery. The universal injunction’s relative novelty — it was invented in the 20th century, and took a star turn only in the 21st — means that it lies outside of the powers of the federal courts.
In a powerful and comprehensive opinion for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett showed how dissonant the universal injunction is with the traditional practice of the federal courts.
Even though the court was decisive in rejecting the universal injunction, it left open many other questions. These include when states and organizations can sue on behalf of other people, whether a federal statute called the Administrative Procedure Act allows federal courts to rule on regulations set by federal agencies for the country, and when courts should give broad injunctions to afford an individual or state plaintiff “complete relief.”
Another important question left open is how easy or hard it will be for people challenging executive orders to bring class actions, which allow an individual plaintiff to represent many other people in a case. Class actions also offer sweeping relief.
How the court decides these questions in the future will determine the decision’s practical effect.
What is not going to change because of this decision is birthright citizenship. The court stated that the executive order would not go into effect for 30 days, which gives plenty of time for the challengers to switch from universal injunctions to other avenues like class actions. I expect the courts to continue to reject in case after case the government’s arguments for the birthright citizenship order. The likely result is that President Trump’s unconstitutional executive order on birthright citizenship will never go into effect.
But something else is at stake — competing visions for the role of the courts in our constitutional system. One vision is to say that the job of every judge is to declare the law and make sure everyone, including the president, follows it all the time. There’s a lot to be said for following the law, and in our constitutional system, no one is above it.
Another vision is to say that the chief job of the courts is to decide cases. Resolving disputes is what gives the courts their legitimacy: It is the core of the judicial power given by the Constitution, and robust judicial power is tolerable in a democracy precisely because the judges stay in their lane. A judge’s job is not to say, “Someone is wrong on the internet” and then do something about it. Instead, her job is to decide the case before her fearlessly, according to the existing law, and to give the proper remedy to whichever party wins.
These two visions were on offer in the opinions in Trump v. CASA, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson offering the first vision in dissent, and Justice Barrett offering the second vision for the majority.
We live in a time of great pressure on our constitutional system, with a president who thinks he can make laws (he can’t), suspend laws (he can’t) and punish enemies without a trial (he can’t). It is precisely at this time that the first vision is most attractive — and the second vision is most essential.
The courts must defend constitutional rights and liberties. But they must defend them as courts defend them: deciding cases for the parties and giving remedies to the parties. That function is what gives courts their constitutional legitimacy in a democratic society.
It will mean that courts don’t have the power to remedy every wrong. And it will mean that a patchwork of rulings sometimes persists. But to remedy every wrong immediately and everywhere — outside of the case and the parties — is not what the courts are designed for.
In rejecting the concept of the universal injunction, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the proper role of the federal courts within our constitutional system. It is not naïve or undemocratic for the courts to lead by example in adhering to the rule of law.
Samuel Bray is a law professor at the University of Notre Dame.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5743734&forum_id=2#49059098)
|
 |
Date: June 29th, 2025 8:18 PM Author: At-the-ready old irish cottage
"We live in a time of great pressure on our constitutional system, with a president who thinks he can make laws (he can’t), suspend laws (he can’t) and punish enemies without a trial (he can’t)."
make laws-forgive student loan debt
suspend laws-student loan debt, border enforcement
punish enemies without a trial-jan 6 commission, impeachment farces, fraud trial is only about damages
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5743734&forum_id=2#49059193) |
|
|