Justice Gorsuch wants to strip power from lower courts to help Trump

[turbinetree]

By Lisa Needham -January 30, 2020 5:40 PM

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch is making it clear he does not like national injunctions.

On Monday, the conservative majority of the Supreme Court issued yet another ruling the Trump administration had requested in an emergency capacity, something it has done over 20 times already. The Court rejected a lower court's decision to block the administration's "public charge" rule, meaning the administration is free to deny green cards to migrants who use might use public benefits, such as Medicaid.

The fact that yet another one of Trump's xenophobic policies is now in effect is bad enough, but there's more to the story. While the decision itself is unsigned — meaning the court just issued an order without saying who wrote it or explaining their reasoning — Justice Neil Gorsuch penned a concurrence, or agreement with the decision, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, that expresses some very dangerous ideas about the role of lower federal courts.

In the concurrence, Gorsuch doesn't have much to say about the actual public charge rule. Instead, he uses it to complain about what he sees as the real problem: "[T]he increasingly common practice of trial courts ordering relief that transcends the cases before them."

What Gorsuch and Thomas are mad about are nationwide injunctions — where a lower court stops a federal law from going into effect across the entire country while litigation proceeds. A nationwide injunction typically occurs when a plaintiff, the person bringing the case to court, sues to block the law before it starts.

Though a concurrence doesn't have the force of law, Gorsuch is laying down a marker: He wants the Supreme Court to start restricting the ability of lower courts to block Trump's harmful agenda, even for the time it takes to litigate the issue. That way, the administration can continue to foist laws on the American people even while lower courts are still determining whether those rules are unconstitutional.

https://americanindependent.com/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-strip-power-lower-courts-donald-trump-judicial/

This Federalist society jerk should never had been crowned to the bench............................

November 3, 2020 cannot get here fast enough....................

[EndlessWire]

1. Thank you...sigh. n/t

[Massacure]

2. This actually cuts both ways.

Texas and a plethora of other states sued the Obama Administration when he announced the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) and received an injunction against it from the District Court from the Southern District of Texas.

Under Gorsuch's interpretation, that injunction only would have effect in southern Texas and Obama would have been able to implement the program in the rest of the country. The only way to get a nationwide injunction would have been to go to the Supreme Court, and that would have died in a 4-4 split.. just as Obama's attempt to overturn Judge Andrew Hanen's injunction did in real life.

Many people would have benefited from DAPA in that alternate scenario.

[DeminPennswoods]

3. I think in this public charge case, the real problem

was that several courts ruled differently creating a lot of confusion.